Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2005 1:41 pm
Ok, the circles are beginning to be unwound, we seem to agree on a lot of things, perhaps too many points were being bandied around. <br />
<br />
All your arguments seem to be leading into what is my central argument, that it is the 'system' of the military which is the problem. This, I believe, is the problem with most closed bureaucratic systems, and canada is a notoriously bureaucratized society which is increasingly being closed to scrutiny. Canada, like all peoples, are ingenious, hard working, caring people-unfortunately their government is not. It has, and has always had, it's own agenda. Sometimes it agrees with the populations (peacekeeping with the UN rather than covert action)-although not always; sometimes it concedes to the populations (medicare, pensions, minimum wage laws) but it is not set up to do so, so 'making changes' is incredibly difficult and time consuming.<br />
<br />
I quite agree that good, and great behaviour should be rewarded. Not only in the military, which has obvious life saving examples (unfortunately also life taking examples), but also and especially in civilian life. Watch the documentary on the whistleblower who informed on Phillip Environmental that it was dumping untreated dioxins and radioactive waste. His life became a misery and the government only made it worse. <br />
<br />
That soldiers attempted peacemaking is not a difficult concept for me to grasp, however, increasingly it is the system's use which causes the problems in the first place. The violence in Yugoslavia reached horrible proportions AFTER nato entered and began bombing. Prior to that, although it was bad, it was not nearly as bad as what was happening to the kurds right next door in turkey, or even in normal columbian life (equal number of people killed, displaced, atrocities committed, etc.). However, Canada was and is doing substancial trade in turkey so we didn't want to offend them. Columbia, of course, is now considered by our government as just another wonderful democracy.<br />
<br />
The hazing I referred to isn't just from experience, I did an undergraduate honours thesis on it for sociology. My point certainly isn't that it is all-pervasive, or even normative, but that the structures in place keep any outside investigators from discovering how pervasive it is (and it is pervasive enough to be a problem). An 'open' military, which would include all people fighting for their country would not tolerate such behaviour. If I earn 40 grand a year and show up to learn tactical skills and some little pissant tells me to do 500 pushups while he sits on my back I would quite rightly tell him to go to hell (and that's mild hazing). That is impossible in today's military simply because of the norms. My sister is in religious studies and wanted to do a documentary on the affects on religion which Rwanda had on those veterans, the military refused anybody, particular the clergy, even talking to her. This, quite clearly is not threat to 'national security' or any such nonsense, the military simply didn't want it dealt with. Soldiers are often at as much risk from their own governments as from an enemy.<br />
<br />
Finally, I really do have to disagree about the respect. Tactical warfare is never like chess to the enlisted man. They generally have very little training in what their opponent is like and instilling respect of an opponent is the last thing an officer wants to do because it makes it harder to get a soldier to kill them. In the first world war it was a common tactic to send troops 'over the top', not because it was thought ground could be gained, but because it would result in many deaths, which would enrage the remaining soldiers enough to despise their enemy. Avenging a fallen comrade is a guaranteed way of ensuring ruthless behaviour. <br />
That being said I can understand your point about the chess. At an officer level or generally any level where there was far less chance of being killed, there is considerable respect for the tactics and manoevers of high ranking tacticians. It is a well honoured and well documented practise. Unfortunately, it is they who typically have the flamboyant biographers and their stuff sells far more books as they are typically far less brutal than the life shattering experiences of those pulling the triggers. However, I also understand that most of my arguments tend to the world wars, which I know most about, and not peacekeeping missions afterwards, except Korea, so I may be out of my league there.<br />
<br />
PS: the bna was in 1867 and was an act of union, there was another act in 1927 that recognized canadian independance (although if canada got out of hand there were still ways to yank the yoke.)
