General Disagreement
A pissing contest between retired generals makes for relatively good debate. Here is an article showcasing a critique of Lgen(ret) Dallaire, senator, by Mgen(ret) Mackenzie. Mackenzie lays some solid punches on Dallaire regarding the Darfur crisis.
What I like about Mackenzie's piece is that he suggests the possibility of lengthening tours in Afghanistan to allow for a new deployment in Darfur. The idea is a non-starter for the Canadian military establishment, and it would be highly unpopular among many members who want to return to their families etc.
But the strength of the idea is that it is a departure from current conventional thinking. It relies on the essential point that military units ultimately exist to serve government policy, regardless of how much they might like to come home. Sometimes its worth saying unpopular things. Mackenzie's idea is not without merit, and policy makers should consider it among the range of options available to the government.
What I like about Mackenzie's piece is that he suggests the possibility of lengthening tours in Afghanistan to allow for a new deployment in Darfur. The idea is a non-starter for the Canadian military establishment, and it would be highly unpopular among many members who want to return to their families etc.
But the strength of the idea is that it is a departure from current conventional thinking. It relies on the essential point that military units ultimately exist to serve government policy, regardless of how much they might like to come home. Sometimes its worth saying unpopular things. Mackenzie's idea is not without merit, and policy makers should consider it among the range of options available to the government.
posted by Lt Smash at 8:22 AM
8 Comments:
I hate to rain on your hit parade, but to play the partisan strumpet for a moment ...
Firstly, Mr. Dallaire, although perhaps somewhat misguided, should be judged in the context of the attrocities he has lived through. Having had the opportunity to sit not 10 feet away from him and listen to him speak, I can assure you that his sentiments are quite genuine. This, of course, is no replacement for good miliary and politial judgement, but deserves some consideration nonetheless.
Secondly, this whole notion of sending more CF troops overseas is frankly hilarious. Not only do we not have enough to patrol our own shores on a good day (look at a map ... we're a circumpolar nation, yet there are about 10 CF troops working north of James Bay), but our equipment on the field is about 30 years out of date. Yes, our troops are training with the best stuff, but what happens when we get dug into the Afghanistan mission (come on, who really believes the 2009 deadline?) and more supplies are needed? Which gets priority: Afghanistan or Darfur? And let's face facts, my friends: CF troops at home only fire real ammo once per year and drive around in trucks that are painted with the letters "TANK" for what is suppose to pass as training because our government is too cheap to invest any more money in them!
What boggles my mind is this sudden enthusiasm on the part of the Canadian military to run off half cocked à la Bush in the name of peace and freedom for all. Why the sudden hot flashes to go fight anywhere there's the potential for flexing some Canadian military muscle?
And might I remind those who have forgotten that the reason Canada has only sent some cash and a few tanks over to Darfur is because the local government has refused to allow our forces inside? Maybe it's not such a bad idea after all to let the African Union and la Francophonie give it a try, with a kick in the @$$ from some of the superpowers now and again.
Well, no rain no gain, as I always say.
Because I'm busy running around playing army with a computer painted with the word "tank" on it, I'll have to respond when I'm fully cocked.
That just goes to show the different between you and I. My computer has the word "Happy." written one it ... notice the point finale ... it's a non-negotiable.
As for your degree of cockiness, we're frankly not interested, but thank you all the same.
Well, Anonymous Steve, here goes:
M. Dallaire is held to high standard when it comes to his professional opinion: He held the highest rank possible in the Army, commanded a humanitarian mission, and is now a senior legislator. Many have had the chance to read his writings and hear him speak. Nobody doubts Gen Dallaire's sincerity.
Second, sending more troops to Darfur or anywhere is not a desire of the CF (it is a strategic option). As I recall, it is the desire of the NDP, all of the Responsibility to Protect crowd and those in left wing of the Liberal caucus.
Third, the reason we don't patrol James Bay is that nobody is being raped or killed up there (as far as we know).
Fourth, army equipment is determined logically by strategic decisions, not the other way around. (ie. We don't refuse to deploy troops for lack of equipment. We decide on missions and then equip the missions based on the need.)
More to follow.
Did you just out me to the entire world wide web? If you weren't built like a tank, I might take objection to that ... as it stands, I'm forced to keep my mouth shut (on that particular subject.)
In response to your responses ...
1. Dallaire = "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Agreed.
2. The CF don't WANT to go to Darfur, eh? Hmm ... seems to me while reading the blog of an up and coming soldier just the other day that he was "busy running around playing army with a computer painted with the word "tank" on it." Furthermore, I seem to recall another comment made by said solider that he was "willing and ready" to get on the ground and start doing something.
Checkmate.
3. WRONG! First of all, the CF doesn't know WHAT'S going on up there as they have no resources to patrol the region. Secondly, the role of the CF is not to police the region ... that's what the RCMP is there for. Their role is to patrol our waters and make sure that our borders are being secured. Contrary to popular belief, the role of the military is not to engage in relief efforts ... nor is it solely to uphold the rights and freedoms of people in war torn countries. It's role IS, however, to ensure that Canada's borders are secure, and that other nations are respecting our sovereignty.
4. Seems to me that operations are undertaken, logistics are left to the sidelines, and things go ahead regardless. Besides, operations must be tapered by resources, something that one learns in First Year Business ... :)
Something else? Bring it!
Well, there is no way that I can compete with your wicked intellectual wizardry. First, I didn't out you. I didn't tell the world that you were Steve. I called you Anonymous Steve. That could be ANY Steve.
I don't think that you can blame the organization for the personal opinions of some of its members. Especially my personal opinions, which are dangerous and inflammatory. Firemen don't hope for fire... but if there is going to be a fire, they want to put it out. Analogy: APT! APT I say.
I think that you are right to point out the natural tension between our overseas commitments and our sovereignty objectives in Canada. There is a lack of clarity as to exactly what the priorities of the CF should be, and transformation is upon us, forcing us to reevaluate our traditional outward-looking focus. However, people will have to resist the urge to see suffering on CNN and immediately deploy Canadian Forces to respond.
First year business has absolutely nothing to do with military operational planning. We're all glad that you got the chance to take that course though. Must have been fun, especially with all the nice business girls at Laurier.
P.S. Yes, I'm aware that resource considerations are an essential part of planning. However, in the military context, we generally attempt to identify operational requirements and fill them as fast as possible rather than trying to make operational requirements fit the resources available. (Obviously, there is a middle ground that must be struck because we are all aware that resources are finite). But on a conceptual level, the Government must decide what it wants to do, and then dedicate the resources to do it.
In other words, to employ another apt analogy, you buy your tools based on the house you want to build. You do not build your house based on the lumber and tools that you have. APT!
Peace, out.
"Firemen don't hope for fire" ...?
Wow.
My 'wicked intellectual wizardry' aside, let's take this puppy one step further and try and expand on that absolutely mind-blowing analogy. Not to step on any egos, but the CF have a very tiny hose with very little water shooting out of it, and there's one M-F hell of a fire going on in the GAA (Greater Afghanistan Area). Resources ... objectives ... yes, any decent fireman will want to put out the fire, but if all he has is a tiny, dried up hose, ... well, let's just say he'll have to be content with putting out the fires that he can 'reasonably' expect to put out. It's like hearing about a HUGE brush fire and being pumped about contributing to putting it out, then showing up in front of Dante's inferno with a garden hose!
And yes, I would argue that first year business does and should have something to do with military operational planning. Not at the beginning of the planning process, but somewhere along the way, preferably before deployment or allocation of troops. (By the way, most of the girls in biz at Laurier were wh*&^$ ... and I say that with love. The hotties were in the sciences and kin ed.)
Final point: Frankly, it's naïeve to think that the government will be able to fulfill its military wish list based on a number of historical and financial factors. Dedicating resources sounds simple enough, but let's not forget that the military budget is just one of many ... how are you going to explain to Canadians that new helicopters are more important than addressing the 2 million people living in poverty in this country? And while I would never make the connection that a dollar spent on the CF is necessarily a dollar less spent on social programs, one has to recognize that financial planning is not an easy game to play, and sometimes tough decisions need to be made. So saying that we make a military plan then simply allocate the funds to make it happen is ignoring the point entirely ... it's more complex than that. The military has to learn to live within it's budget, and the government needs to learn to start prioritizing operations within the budget it's willing to commit.
Ya dig?
Yeah, I dig. In Canada, we basically rearrange the military furniture based on the money the federal budget allocates (some exceptions exist). The main budget gets raided or topped up to pay for operational contingencies. My comments are more on a theoretical level (ie. what should happen but rarely does). I got so "into" the fire analogy, I felt like I was in a BC forest during a dry summer!
Post a Comment
<< Home