The audible “umph” heard across Canada last night was the sound of the Federal budget dropping. With all the subtlety of a Bison taking a dump in your morning cereal, the Harper administration took another concerted step towards making Canada that much worse of a place. Suffice it to say, concerned citizens have already taken to the interwebs to voice their displeasure.
As the government’s latest round of pillaging of the country’s public services takes its sinister form, the most egregiously over-funded department remains largely untouched. I speak, of course, of the Canadian Forces.
As a PhD student in Political Science, with a specialization in International Relations (IR), I feel I can speak with a certain level of competence on the subject of militaries, war(s) and similar concerns. As such, I ask you, dear Canadians, why do we have a military?
Putting aside knee-jerk jingoism, I honestly don’t know that there is a reasonable answer to this question. But let us entertain the only two legitimate possibilities, from what I can gather, all the same:
To ward off invasion! Who is going to invade Canada? And more over, who would invade Canada that the United States would not immediately retaliate? What, are the Russians suddenly going to drop Spetsnaz troopers into West Edmonton Mall and the Americans are just going to sit there and wring their hands about the legality of foreign entanglements? Please.
Ah, but the Arctic, you say, we must defend the Arctic! Yet again, we must ask ourselves, however: defend the Arctic from whom? The only legitimate threat to Canada’s sovereignty is the United States and I hate to break it to you hockey fans, but in the event of a serious American desire to annex the Canadian North—it is going to happen. As that is a seriously unrealistic prospect any time soon, the whole point is moot. We have nothing to defend, and if we did, we couldn’t do so anyway—even if we increased our military budget many-fold.
As such, we are better off relying on the mercies of international law, as dire a prospect as that may seem (or, indeed, be).
International Commitments (read: NATO). As a member of NATO, Canada has certain commitments to this military alliance, one of them being maintaining armed forces capable of projecting force across the globe. At least, that’s the official line. Realistically speaking, NATO is a US-dominated vehicle with some paltry assistance from countries like the UK, Germany and France. Canada, like most member states, serves as little more than a glorified air strip for Americans bombers (during the Cold War, our major contribution was a handful of NORAD bases, for instance). As such, Canada’s NATO “commitments” are barely substantive at all.
You know who else is a member of NATO? Luxembourg and Albania. Now, if most Canadians can find these countries on a map, I’ll eat my shoe. In any case, neither one of these states is exactly a military juggernaut—numbering barely 4000 standing troops in the case of the former.
What purpose does it serve to have Canada pretend like our 80-year old submarines or our 90-year old aircraft (I exaggerate…slightly) are going to free anyone from anything? Or that that this even ought to be our role? If need be, Canada could still play a supporting role in NATO-operations (what we already basically do) without the need for billions in extra dollars spent on glorified museum pieces. And again, even if you updated the military hardware—what would you do with it? The worst case scenario is precisely what is happening right now: precious public funds are being spent on sending young Canadian men and women overseas to die in the name of foreign occupations and, as in the case of Haiti, in the name of toppling democratically elected governments. Canada’s foreign involvements, at least of this nature, do not serve the purpose of Canadians and certainly not the people overseas who are being ostensibly “liberated.”
Let’s be clear: Canada is an isolated, geographically and politically secure country. It is fully in the fold of the Western world, and will never find itself under threat of foreign invasion that would not be repelled by its allies. And in the event that one of its allies themselves threatened Canada’s security (such as the United States), we could not possibly hope to defeat them anyway. And besides, such a scenario would likely only play out in some sort of dystopian tomorrow-world, in which case American invasion would likely be the least of our concerns (as the roaming bands of Mad Max-like outlaw motorcycle gangs, which will surely have come to dominate the landscape by then, will already have sacked Mississauga and Comox alike).
Consider this, Costa Rica, by any sensible analysis, has far, far more to fear in the way of foreign invasion or even internal strife than Canada. And yet, Costa Rica abolished its military in 1948 (!) and today only maintains a small peacekeeping force for domestic and foreign endeavors. Why should Canada not pursue a similar course? Incidentally, Iceland, another northern country, and member of NATO, has not had a standing military in the real sense of the term since 1869—and they’ve had to worry about rogue Viking fleets practically that whole time (and an invasion by the British in 1940).
Who amongst us or who amongst our elected officials would like to make a serious case for the necessity of Canadian military “hegemony”? Any such arguments would have to be based on hyperbole and fabrication—precisely what the Harper administration has engaged in for years now.
Instead of wasting precious public funds, which could be used for schools and universities, hospitals and public pensions, or even an increase in Canada’s foreign aid commitments, we waste billions of dollars every year pretending like our jets and frigates serve any function whatsoever. Canada has no future as a war-machine and this should be a point of pride, not concern.
The money we continue to spend on the Canadian Forces would even be better spent on a giant, money-burning furnace, which if built would at least be a tourist attraction. Maybe we can even put it in Comox.
Jasmin Mujanović
Latest posts by Jasmin Mujanović (see all)
- Why does ArcelorMittal hate Bosnia? - December 22, 2012
- Fair Weather Friends: Western Reaction(s) to the Middle East Protests - September 14, 2012
- Historical Revisionism: A Balkan Cottage Industry?* - August 16, 2012
“As the government’s latest round of pillaging of the country’s public services takes its sinister form, the most egregiously over-funded department remains largely untouched. I speak, of course, of the Canadian Forces.”
Perhaps you should actually read the budget document before making such patently false statements.
Planned reductions in spending of $326M, $706M, $1.1B, $1.1B over the next four years can hardly be described as ‘untouched’. Especially when that equates out to almost 25% of total government spending reductions.
With such glaring inaccuracies in your introductory paragraphs, the entire article and information becomes suspect.
well, setting aside whether the CF budget is untouched, what do you think of the arguments against maintaining a military that wouldn’t be depended on what happened in the budget today?
As for the budget reductions – only the first year of the fiscal plan can be implemented in any one budget; the rest are planning figures that can and often are reversed due to political whims later on.
So, if you consider the $326M targeted reduction in spending a substantive decrease, then on a size- and funding-comparison, the 10.6% ($115m) cut the CBC just took must be absolutely astounding.
No, not untouched, but given that the Harper Government TM is having wet dreams over the concept of buying jet planes that cost over $100m *each*, perhaps the ‘reductions’ in CF spending are a way to finance the new fancy flying bomb-delivering things?
The author`s arguments are weak at best. The international commitment argument is completely flawed. Who cares what the size of military forces of Albania and Luxemburrg are? As a % of population, the Canadian military is smaller than Luxemburg’s, so that information could be used to argue we should have a larger military!
This comment : “during the Cold War, our major contribution was a handful of NORAD bases, for instance”, indicates either purposefully misleading the reader or the author has no knowledge of Canadian military history ( Yet states at the beginning of the article that his PhD studies would qualify him as somewhat of an expert). I think many military historians would rank Canada’s bases they maintained in Lahr and Baden as well as reciprocal training agreements with many European nations as much more important than a handful of Norad bases.
Beyond that, there is the suggestion that the only two reasons to have a military are either to ward off invasion or support international commitments. I would suggest that it’s an understatement to call this overly simplistic. The author is forgetting search and rescue, and domestic emergencies as two off the top of my head.
In my opinion, the piece comes down to “The only country we have to fear is the US, otherwise the US and Europe will protect us” and ” Who needs to honor NATO and/or UN commitments” Both are weak reasons to start with and the arguments presented behind them are weak as well.
So, a few points.
1. Yes, I do consider the 1.1 billion slashed from defense spending still qualifies as having the military survive this round as “largely untouched.” I suppose you may disagree, but that’s why I said “largely” and why this is an opinion piece.
2. The military contributions of Albania et al are relevant in that they too are member states of NATO and seem to get by with considerably less military spending (e.g. Luxembourg spends %0.5 of its GDP on defense spending vs. Canada’s %1.5). Moreover, they illustrate that NATO membership ≠ large military or military spending.
3. I’m not a military historian, nor did I ever claim to be. Nonetheless, Canada’s role during the Cold War was marginal at best. Perhaps more pronounced than what I gave the country credit for, but still marginal. I do not know of any serious scholar who would claim otherwise. You’re splitting hairs.
4. Search and Rescue? I never claimed that certain operations (such as already in the case of Costa Rica & Iceland) should not be maintained. Search and Rescue, however, in no way impacts the broader thrust of the argument. Why do we need jet fighters? Who are we going to dog-fight it out with?
5. I still have yet to see much of a coherent counter argument. Yes, I do think the only country that could invade Canada and “get away with it” in any meaningful sense of term would be the US, and even then the whole global situation would already likely be in the crapper. I’m waiting for a coherent counter-narrative.
We’ll dog-fight with competing search and rescue forces.
Dear anarchist friend, it’s evident from your writing style that you want to produce inflammatory statements. This, no doubt raises your profile as an assistant prof and activist, and gives you something to put in your byline. But, as other have already pointed out, your argument is weak and clearly the value of your PhD is limited, because you evidently cannot speak with credibility about the subject of militaries. I would expect that your expertise in IR would at least give you an understanding of the leverage our military gives to the government on the world stage. But perhaps you are right, and the leaders of nearly every nation in history have been wrong. Maybe no country needs an army. Be thankful that Canada’s army has fought bravely in wars to maintain freedom here and elsewhere so that people like you can wax eloquent about your learned opinions. Sadly, yours is the first article I’ve read on this site and so it will be the last.
and while i’ve written on this site about my varying opinions of the canadian military [positively towards the personnel, generally, and negatively towards the missions] i won’t speak for jasmin, but i don’t see how all of our wars were to maintain freedom here and elsewhere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Canada, especially the support of imperial escapades and proxy imperial wars, in addition to our escapade in haiti on 2.29.2004, which didn’t make it into this list.
and now that the conservative government is sliding well through our soft fascism phase, we’re all going to be celebrating our triumph or whatever in the war of 1812. celebrating our grand military history is a highly politicized kool-aid drinking exercise these days. i think we may need to have more pieces critical of that narrative on our site in coming months.
and let’s not forget the boer war escapade “Canadian forces also participated in the British-led concentration camp programs that resulted in the deaths of thousands of Boer civilians” [from the link above]
and as a fellow social studies teacher, mike, i always found it more compelling to encourage my students to focus more on the substance of arguments than to start off with arguing against personal motives you are merely inferring–raising one’s profile, as well as taking a shot at the value of someone’s quite advanced degree based on reading one blog post from them.
I’ll just leave it at this. You can question the utility of having a military, but if the argument “against” is as weak as Mr. Mujanovic’s then it says more about the poor quality of our higher education system than it does about the obsolescence of self defense mechanisms. As small as our army may be, it punches well above its weight and its participation globally is one of the key reasons Canada has a voice in the world. An army is more than the physical defense of our border, but the author has limited his argument to that. For an international relations expert, that’s abysmal. My fifth grade social studies class offered more insight into the role of an army. However, if Canadians wish to exercise as much influence in the world as Costa Rica, then so be it. Doubtless Mr. Mujanovic will find another target from the comfort of his desk.
Yeah, that’s definitely why Canada “punches above it’s weight” in international affairs–because our war machine is feared by our many, many enemies.
Insomuch as Canada exerts influence on the world stage it does so because of its economy, not its military. We have a (now fleeting) reputation as a peacekeeping nation but recent military spending & ventures have actually only tarnished such a reputation. My argument towards increasing foreign aid, or providing a more logistical role for NATO, are addressing that aspect.
But since I already raised basically all of these points in the country, I think I can safely assume that you have no interest in an evidence-based discussion and prefer to express your opinions in the forms of eye rolls and scoffs. By all means, sir. If you think spending billions ever year so we can soldiers in the sand is a good use of public monies, I invite you to take that stance, and defend it vigorously.
As for your stabs to my qualifications & education, these are quite old hat, so I’ll leave such hackish personal attacks to the side. All the best.
so you’re good with our role in the boer war, then, mike, since “I’ll just leave it at this”?
First of all, the Canadian Armed Forces have proven themselves of extreme utility several times over even if we only consider Candian history, without even needing to look beyond our borders.
One of the roles that the Candian Forces have played time and again, even in recent history has been in the aid to civil power clause of the National Defence Act. Aid to civil power allows the mobilization of military assets to assist Canadian citizens anywhere in the country. No other organization is equipped to render this level of assistance so quickly.
Just last year, the Royal 22nd Regiment (VanDoos) were mobilized to help alieviate the flooding in St. Jean-sur-le-Richelieu and other affected areas in southern Quebec: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2011/05/05/quebec-record-flooding-army.html
In 1997, 8,000 people were mobilized to help sand-bag parts of Manitoba during those floods: http://archives.cbc.ca/environment/extreme_weather/topics/670-3795/
When Toronto was hit by record snow-fall, we laughed when the Candian Forces were called in to assist in managing the accumulated snow. That didn’t make the situation any less serious however: http://archives.cbc.ca/environment/extreme_weather/clips/12772/
These are just a few recent examples of the boring drudge-work done by the Canadian Forces when natural disasters strike and our own people need help.
How about off-shore?
Well, as you SHOULD KNOW, as a student of Political Science, in 1990 the atlantic cod fish industry collapsed which has had devastating effects on the economy of the maritime provinces, and in response the Government of Canada declared a moratorium on fishing in the Grand Banks, in the hope that fish-stocks might recover. During that time, the Royal Canadian Navy, was responsible for fisheries patrol. In order to have any chance at a recovery of fish stocks in the Grand Banks, Canada had no choice but to aggressively chase off vessels from other countries who, if allowed free reign could possibly have further devestated the Grand Banks and effectively guaranteed that no recovery would be possible. It has fallen to the Canadian Navy to guard our costal waters, something which it finds extremely boring, but is necessary for the long term health and sustainability of Maritime provinical economy. The Cost Guard simply doesn’t have the .50 caliber browning machine guns which are considerably more effective at stopping the ecological damage that over-fishing does to the natural environment. As admirable as the efforts of environmentalists are, platitudes, and sanctions don’t have quite the same impact as the potential of being ventilated by a series of half-inch lead bullets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbot_War
And you mention a possible coup in Haiti, which was sourced only from the fevered minds of the professional activists at Rabble.ca, but forget the life-saving humanitarian aid, and medical assistance selflessly delivered to that same country just six years later after a colossal earthquake left an estimated 1/3 of Haitians homeless and devestated. I think that the Canadian Forces hesitated just long enough to type the operational orders before sending ~2000 troops to provide medical aid, and humanitarian assistance to a people who truly needed it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Hestia
These are the true, boring, dull, but vitally important functions of the Canadian Forces. No other group within Canada stands ready to drop absolutely everything that it’s doing, mobilize resources impossible for anyone else, and rush headlong into danger and disaster to save lives, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, heal the sick, and protect the innocent.
Now that you know the tinies sliver more about the actual history and operations of the Canadian Forces, I think I’ll rip your argument to shreds, which as it stands, is apalling coming as it does from a citizen of the former Bozina-Herzegovina, but I’ll get to that.
First concerning the possible invasion of Canada. While it’s extremely unlikely that any current enemy would or could invade Canada, as Canada is geographically remote, this shouldn’t in any way preclude Canada from remaining in a state of readiness. As you should be aware, geo-politics are variable, and if you knew your history, Upper Canada was threatened by the United States as little as 166 years ago. And indeed, in the Winter of 1837-38, a small group of Americans did try to invade Canada. While the modern day threat from the United States thankfully reamains remote owing to our good relations, and shared democratic ideals, the opening video to a work of fiction is hardly a compelling evidence, or a reasonable argument. And all of this completely ignores the several incidents of Russian war planes probing our airspace. While it’s true that we don’t have very much to fear these days, it’s hardly advisable or prudent to invite invasion by weakening ourselves either.
And this notion that our allies will protect us is utterly amoral, and smacks of arrogance. If we want to count on American protection, why then shouldn’t we petition to become the 51st state? It’s utterly unethical to expect that our allies will do all the heavy lifting in a potential conflict on our behalf. We have a proud history of being the scariest god-damned troops on the battlefield (ask the German veterans of World War II, if you can find one…) and we shouldn’t give up that legacy because some ignorant ivory-tower academic wants to give the job of defending Canada to someone else.
I’m glad that the Americans are our friends, but with your side of the political spectrum being mostly dominant and somewhat hegemonic in this country for the past 50 year or so, the average Canadian mind has been horrendously poisoned against America, and Americans, and eventually, our good relations are probably going to suffer for it. I’m equally thankfull that Americans don’t generally pay much attention to us, and especially the political left. If they did, I think that we should probably abandon the idea that they’d be willing to help us at all. Our attitude certainly doesn’t warrant such sacrficie on the part of people we have the audacity to call our friends. If we’re to remain friends, we might try to be a little more friendly.
And yes, we can’t project force around the globe like we perhaps should be. Again. It’s completely unethical and morally bankrupt to expect that Americans will do all of the heavy lifting in this regard. Time and again, the Americans have tried with mixed results to help people in need. What’s worse is that our history shows that when it comes to peacekeeping, or even having to fight to protect the weak, pound-for-pound, we’re always better at accomplishing these objectives than the Americans. But unlike the Americans who embrace a love of duty, and of human obligation, we shirk and avoid our responsibilities to serve the interests of professional students, and ivory-tower academics who can’t understand and can’t appreciate that vital and important work that the Canadian Forces do every day.
Which brings me to peacekeeping. Your disparaging remarks about our legacy of peacekeeping are probably the most offensive of all. Our legacy and reputation are not in any way damaged by the necessity of shifting our focus. If the United Nations hadn’t turned into little more than a sock-puppet for the Arab block, and a protectionist entity for brutal dictatorships around the world, I would think that we’d probably still be on peacekeeping missions today. As you are from the former Boznia-Herzegovina, you of all people should be able to appreciate the peacekeeping legacy of the Canadian Forces, who have time and again put themselves into harms way to protect lives. Like yours at one time. And your response?
People in St-Jean-sur-le-Richelieu – Your homes don’t matter, let the flood wash them away.
People in Manitoba – Your homes don’t matter, let the flood wash them away.
People in Toronto – Freeze in the snow.
People in Haiti – You got hit by an earthquake? Well, that’s just too bad I guess.
People in Newfoundland – You’re out of work, and there are no fish? Well, it’s really important that people in Spain have both work, and fish, so you can just sign-up for welfare.
People in Boznia – Civil war? People being raped, murdered and subject to ethnic cleansing? Too bad, we have to shovel money into the pockets of ivory-tower academics.
People in America – We’re not going to help you do anything, or give you any money, and we’re going to act like complete jerks while we do it, but we fully expect that you’ll jump in and speed into danger to protect and defend us if we ever need it.
You know you’re right. We don’t need the Canadian Forces – strictly speaking. But I guess an anarchist like yourself can’t understand that we have the Canadian Forces if only because it’s the right thing to do.
fevered minds of professional activists at rabble.ca? that’s cute.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/09/15/f-canada-military-joint-task-force-2.html
And your big damning link, your evidence is…? A CBC article about Joint Task Force -2? Seriously?
You know, with the amount of detail I can info-dump about the Canadian Forces, you’d think that the big brains around here would quickly figure out that I’m not exactly lightweight when it comes to knowing a thing or two about what the Canadian Forces are and are not. And I’m well aware of the myriad short-comings and scandals that have periodically cropped up in Canada’s military history.
Despite all of that, you honestly thought that I didn’t know about JTF-2, and what they do?
Stop trying to pretend that you have some kind of privileged information about the Canadian Forces before I really embarrass you.
You’re also apparently quite the internet tough guy. We’re all really impressed (and turned on!) by your threats.
So, you can’t refute anything I’ve said. Your knowledge is lacking, and this is the best you can do? No mea culpa, no reconsideration, or reevaluation in the face of new information? And you presumably stand by your academic integrity?
How about a request, then.
In the future, please refrain from commenting on the import of the Canadian Forces – you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about, and obviously unqualified to make any kind of intelligent contribution to such a discussion.
Hi there,
No one gets to ask anyone to refrain from commenting on anything here. Not even me asking you to stop the really odd sort of pearl-clutching outrage over the fact that Jasmin has questioned the relevance of the Canadian armed forces.
Want to keep commenting here? Throw up some of your vaunted “info dump” or whatever the hell you want to call it instead of attacking Jasmin directly. If you want to attack what you perceive to be Jasmin’s lack of knowledge on the Canadian Forces, then post in a comment some data that refutes his “lack of knowledge” instead of just blathering on and baiting him as you call him stupid.
You’ve thrown up a bunch of stuff above; in your example of the Navy needing to defend the Grand Banks, you note that the Coast Guard needs some .50 caliber cannons. Perhaps that’s an idea instead of spending billions on submarines that were broken when we bought them, simply because someone thought that Canada needed submarines?
The internal matters that you note would be well served by a model such as Costa Rica’s. Our stupidity in Haiti, in terms of directly supporting a coup d’etat, is not something that we should be proud of, nor is it something that we should be funding as part of a penis-related pride as to who has big guns and who doesn’t.
Stick to debating matters of substance, or pointing out where in Jasmin’s piece he is missing substance. Do not delve deep into the ad-hominems, or you won’t have any more comments approved.
Solidarity.
It’s as though you didn’t even read his post. He wrote, and I quote, “As such, I ask you, dear Canadians, why do we have a military?”
Well, as far as I’m concerned, asked, and answered, in considerable detail.
Given that, I question, where is Jasmin’s knowledge? It was not evidenced in the article. It has not been evidenced in the comments.
I’ve managed to point to a handful of examples, in some detail concerning the utility of the Canadian Forces. My knowledge is therefore evident. It’s on display.
Jasmin writes, “As a PhD student in Political Science, with a specialization in International Relations (IR), I feel I can speak with a certain level of competence on the subject of militaries, war(s) and similar concerns.”
Really? No. He can’t, or at least he has not yet demonstrated sufficient expertise, experience, or knowledge with the subject material – the role of the Canadian Forces – to justify such an indulgence. He suggests that there are only two justifications for maintaining the Canadian Forces, the threat of invasion, and Canada’s international commitments. I wrote in considerable detail about how the Canadian Forces did much more than simply defend Canada from invasion, and project force overseas. Jasmin made no mention of these actions, and has not yet given them any consideration in the comments – rather, his only reply has been extremely flippant, and arrogant.
So, given that I know something about the CF, while Jasmin either doesn’t, refuses to establish that he has a comparable level of knowledge, or refuses to learn something about the CF, I, on behalf of Canadians who have served, are serving, or who just plain know something substantial about the Canadian Forces, I do get to ask thanks very much.
You say, “Perhaps that’s an idea instead of spending billions on submarines that were broken when we bought them, simply because someone thought that Canada needed submarines?”
Do you want to discuss the relevance of the Canadian Forces, or do you want to discuss how stupid it was to buy submarines from Britain? Because if you want the latter, that’s probably going to be a pretty boring conversation. How about a preview? I agree. Turns out those submarines were a really bad investment. If you’d like, I can find out if HMCS Victoria has been in the water yet since being sailed to Canada from Britain. I’m guessing the answer is going to be “No.”
“Our stupidity in Haiti, in terms of directly supporting a coup d’etat, is not something that we should be proud of, nor is it something that we should be funding as part of a penis-related pride as to who has big guns and who doesn’t.”
Excuse me, evidence? I’ll address your CBC question because it’s relevant. The article in question was not a revelation. It simply rehashed what little is widely known about Joint Task Force-2, JTF-2. Much of the article could be cribbed from Wikipedia – these revelations aren’t shocking, dramatic or to me, particularly interesting. What I understood from you posting your link was that I should know basic information about JTF-2. Well… I already knew basic information about JTF-2, and you purporting to suggest that I need to be educated about JTF-2 seemed a little insulting. Actually, make that extremely insulting. Especially considering that your link was published in support of the argument that Canada, or specifically, JTF-2 was involved in a coup in Haiti. What I was expecting was a display of your evidence. De-classified, or even leaked documents to support your allegation perhaps? So far, all that you have is an article by a far-left blogging/new/social media organization, and an article listing basic information. The article from rabble is long on innuendo and allegation, but short on fact. You are therefore assuming facts not in evidence. Worse. You’ve concluded that JTF-2 assisted in the overthrow of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and it comes from an article that mostly excoriates the actions of the United States, and effectively, only mentions Canada’s role in the country in passing. In other words, you have no evidence. Naturally, much of what JTF-2 does is top secret – strictly “need to know” stuff. It’s possible that JTF-2 may have been involved. But there’s no evidence. There are no facts, only innuendo and allegation completely without support. In fact, it’s so bereft of facts that it borders on a conspiracy theory. Yet you and your writers ponce around touting this allegation as though it were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
To fully answer your question: what isn’t serious is that I, or anyone for that matter, should accept as factual the notion that Canada deployed soldiers serving as members of JTF-2 to Haiti to assist in the coup, and what is more risible is that we should conclude this based on evidence presented by the fevered minds of the professional activists at Rabble.ca, and an article on the CBC presenting only basic information about JTF-2. It’s got nothing to do with it being the CBC, or my worldview. It has everything to do with facts and evidence, either of which would be more compelling and convincing than an article consisting of basic information that anyone could access on the CBC, or even out of Wikipedia for that matter. “Our stupidity in Haiti, in terms of directly supporting a coup d’etat,” What stupidity in Haiti supporting a coup d’etat? Where is your evidence that we provided direct support for a coup d’etat? Was it because we’re allied with the Americans, and they seemed to support a coup d’etat? Was it because JTF-2 was in Haiti providing security for the Canadian embassy at the time? There’s no evidence, but you’re taking Canadian direct support of a coup as a given. I have a problem with that.
“The internal matters that you note would be well served by a model such as Costa Rica’s.”
I disagree. And this is where knowledge is vital. The Canadian Forces distinguish themselves in the world because there’s one quality that the Canadian Forces strive to develop in each and every single member of the Forces which the vast majority of other forces do not stress to the same degree. In fact, I’d argue that the presence of this quality among the Canadian Forces has influenced the United States Marine Corps – in a sense, they’ve become more like us because of our close relations. One could say that this quality is the most prized quality in the Canadian Forces. If you have any knowledge about the Canadian Forces, you already know what I’m talking about.
In any event, this quality can only be won through considerable experience in a wide range of scenarios. It is not earned, gained, or trained in simply attending to the domestic affairs that have been discussed. This quality can only be fostered in the Canadian Forces if the military ethos of the Canadian Forces remains mostly intact. Close bases, and engage in other economic measures as necessary, preserving the Canadian Forces ethos is vital to the survival of the Canadian Forces. Changing the role of the Canadian Forces to being a force which strictly attends to domestic affairs will almost certainly cause a seismic shift in that ethos – the vital quality of the Canadian Forces will no longer be required. As such, it will not be trained, and it will almost certainly be largely lost. Not only will the Canadian Forces become less-effective in defending Canada which is their primary mission, but they won’t be nearly as effective in attending to purely domestic affairs, because the core quality of the Canadian Forces will have been hopelessly compromised. As far as I know, nobody else in the world devotes as much time and effort to developing the key quality of the Canadian Forces as the Canadian Forces. Because of this, if you restrict the Canadian Forces to looking after purely internal affairs, without much concern with what happens in the rest of the world, then when the Canadian Forces are needed either at home, or abroad – and someday, there WILL eventually be a crisis of sufficient urgency that we NEED the Canadian Forces -, they simply won’t be there. We’ll be able to send men and women in uniform, but that’s all they’re going to be. For this reason, we should not transition the Canadian Forces to a Costa-Rica style caretaking force.
Now, if you know what the key quality of the Canadian Forces is, you understand the argument – even if you don’t agree. I suspect, you don’t know, or are uncertain. If you’re ignorant of this quality, then that tells me that you haven’t spent enough time among people in uniform to make an informed, educated argument, and as such, your argument will not be persuasive in the least. In fact, it will be at best, polarizing, those who don’t know will side with you, and those who do know will side with me.
“Stick to debating matters of substance, or pointing out where in Jasmin’s piece he is missing substance. Do not delve deep into the ad-hominems, or you won’t have any more comments approved.”
Substance, has been lacking on your side. Not mine. How much more substance do I need to display before you present yours?
Concerning ad-hominem, have you asked the same of Jasmin? I’m guessing not, and I’m guessing you won’t.
Finally, concerning approval: My experience with your side of the political spectrum strongly suggests that censorship, ignorance, and arrogance are all I will find.
i posted the jtf-2 link. please pay attention to who you are talking to. i posted it as evidence that we were there and what we did. i did that because you wrote this: “And you mention a possible coup in Haiti, which was sourced only from the fevered minds of the professional activists at Rabble.ca, but forget the life-saving humanitarian aid, and medical assistance selflessly delivered to that same country just six years later after a colossal earthquake left an estimated 1/3 of Haitians homeless and devestated.”
that, to me, reads like you think that the only people who thought the CF were involved in the coup comes from fevered minds.
but now it’s sounding like you agree that jtf-2 was there and that now you’re not impressed that i could only come up with a cbc article.
so i hope you can see that the arguments you are making are sliding in varying directions, thus confusing me.
and just for interests sake, you say you’re really informed about the CF. that’s great. you also are objecting to other people’s credibility, so don’t you think you should explain where your credibility comes from instead of just coyly hinting at it? are you ex-jtf-2? are you ex-CF in some other capacity?
and if you’re extremely insulted by my posting the link, i should think that my reply immediately above should explain why i posted it. does that give you a sense of my motivation?
i posted the jtf-2 link. please pay attention to who you are talking to.
I’m apologize. I’m sorry, that’s inexcusable on my part. You have my regrets.
i posted it as evidence that we were there and what we did.
That JTF-2 was present in Haiti does not make JTF-2, or Canada complicit in some kind of coup. Being in a country doesn’t mean JTF-2 was involved. It’s possible, but there’s no evidence, outside of the suggestions made at rabble.ca.
Rabble, is a socialist affiliated website/blog/news agency/social media outlet that has a vested interest in making Americans in general, and the Republican party in particular look as bad as possible. Rabble is also staunchly anti-war. Therefore, anyone reading rabble should mind the bias. When rabble presents an article which suggests that Canada assisted in a coup in Haiti, and used JTF-2 to accomplish this objective, one should necessarily treat the allegation with considerable skepticism given what we know about rabble’s bias, at least until some clear and compelling evidence is presented which is strong enough to outweigh the consideration of bias that should accompany any article published on rabble. The same should hold true for a right-wing media organization, like Sun News, or Fox News or Breitbart, or whatever.
“that, to me, reads like you think that the only people who thought the CF were involved in the coup comes from fevered minds. ”
Yes. There’s virtually no hard evidence. If you want to presume our soldiers are guilty of something, then that’s your prerogative, but there 1) no reason we as a country should listen to you, and 2) no reason we should do anything to change the status quo based on your belief.
but now it’s sounding like you agree that jtf-2 was there and that now you’re not impressed that i could only come up with a cbc article.
I’m not impressed because, 1) the CBC article doesn’t link JTF-2 to the possible coup, 2) the CBC article contains mostly basic information about JTF-2 – I’ve seen the recruiting posters in person for one thing, I’ve spoken and interacted with people who actually work at CANSOFCOM for another- and 3) the presence of JTF-2 in Haiti is only mentioned for what, one or two sentences? Again, if you need to believe for your worldview that JTF-2 helped bring down the government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide fine. But you shouldn’t expect anyone who doesn’t share most of your biases to agree without some compelling evidence.
so i hope you can see that the arguments you are making are sliding in varying directions, thus confusing me.
Well, I’m sorry about that. I thought I was being pretty clear. I trust what I’ve said thus far is perhaps better?
and just for interests sake, you say you’re really informed about the CF. that’s great. you also are objecting to other people’s credibility, so don’t you think you should explain where your credibility comes from instead of just coyly hinting at it? are you ex-jtf-2? are you ex-CF in some other capacity?
Well, I’m not entirely sure it’s relevant, but given the level of detail, perhaps it’s warranted. I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the Canadian Forces in any real capacity. I was a cadet for some time, but I’m not sure that really counts. I’ve never served time in any military Canadian, or otherwise. I am however, a civilian employee of DND. I’ve worked with and for the military, but I have never been IN the military. I speak to serving members from across the country pretty much every business day. That’s where most of my experience comes from. I make no claim to particularly privileged information, I’m only talking about basic facts which are easy to find, and evident to pretty much anyone who works with, for, or in the military for any length of time. I wouldn’t know anything about JTF-2′s activities in Afghanistan for example, other than what I’ve read on Wikipedia and the CBC. I’ve almost certainly spoken to a member of two of JTF-2 on the phone, not that I would have known that at the time, as I sometimes get telephone calls from CANSOFCOM. In this particular case, it’s simply the law of averages at work. Sooner or later, they’ll call me because they need something from me. As a student, I also worked for NPF for a summer or two.
Is that satisfactory?
when you wrote that you were really informed about the CF and that you were criticizing others for what you saw as their lack of information about the CF, i asked you where your credibility is based.
then you replied, “Well, I’m not entirely sure it’s relevant”.
i only asked because you asserted your background, knowledge and credibility.
this is the slipperiness that i was talking about.
this is the slipperiness that i was talking about.
And yet, I answered your question, in full and in detail. And what’s worse, you don’t seem to have read the entire sentence.
i’m sure, though, that when you write the following that you will not judge all individuals in some side of some spectrum based on your experience of others. that’s prejudice, right?
“My experience with your side of the political spectrum strongly suggests that censorship, ignorance, and arrogance are all I will find.”
I judge by actions, not by words. I invite you to do the same. I’m still writing this message which ought to tell you that I haven’t quit yet. I consider that a good thing. Also, I see that my TL:DR give me evidence of JTF-2′s complicity in a coup was posted. I consider that a good thing also.
If it’s prejudice to expect a certain outcome, but being open to a different outcome, then sure. I’m being prejudice.
I appreciate Kevin and Stephen weighing in on this exchange as I have neither the patience nor the interest to “engage.”
A few points though. Yes, I am flippant and sarcastic. You’ve figured out the mystery behind my great deception. What gave it away, the fact that I used the phrase “the subtlety of a Bison taking a dumb in your morning cereal” in my second sentence, perhaps?
All the same, the article makes a simple point which you, in all your huffing and puffing seem to have missed. While there are many reasons why Canada could continue to keep funding the CF to the tune of billions of dollars few of them make much sense. We don’t need to be a nation which project force over sea, and we have nothing and no one to fear (or anyone that we could hope to repel) in the case of foreign invasion.
The ridiculous counter examples you bring up, such as the CF digging out Toronto from winters passed, are all matter which could be covered by smaller, specialized forces–much as I suggested in the article itself.
The rest isn’t worth addressing as it’s just more huffing and puffing, from what I can gather. Thanks for reading.
Jasmin, you completely missed my counter-point.
You don’t actually know what the Canadian Forces ARE, and so you don’t know what it is you would casually throw away. You think that because you’re studying international relations that you can authoritatively state that Canada doesn’t need a military, and therefore, we should get rid of it – it’s a waste of money.
I, and others know what the Canadian Forces are. I have a good sense of just what would be lost.
You don’t even know why you’re wrong, and what’s worse, as I suspected, you can’t be bothered to learn.
You don’t know WHAT you’re talking about. You haven’t got a clue. And rather than take the opportunity to learn something, to truly study the subject, you refuse to learn. Where I come from, that’s called “willful ignorance.”
You’re beneath contempt.
Additionally, just what was it in the CBC article about JTF2 that isn’t “serious”? That it was the CBC? Or that it didn’t fit with your worldview?
wow. that cbc link really touched a nerve with you, i guess. i didn’t mean to confront your self-concept. not knowing you, i have no idea what you do or don’t know about what jtf-2 may or may not have been up to about anything.
but in your defense of me merely posting a link, you didn’t happen to mention whether or not you believe/know that jtf-2 was or wasn’t taking part in the aristide kidnapping on 2.29.2004.
i really have no interest in your personal self-concept. i’d just like you to say something about whether you think our military helped in that coup.
is that too much to ask without the bravado?
I’m far from being of a firm mind about this.
On the one hand, I see the value of keeping the Canadian Forces around to sandbag and shovel, and maybe enforce the odd fishing ban.
On the other hand, when I consider how many people I personally know who joined the Canadian Forces because it was a cheap route to a pricey education, I wonder just how much more effective CF’s budget would be if it were diverted into post-secondary education funding.
One way or the other, our military isn’t a sacred cow. I’d argue that it is integrally less important to Canadians than the CBC, and I’m hearing very few cries of outrage at the… what is it, $115 million cut from their budget?
Sometimes I think defense of our military is like the ludicrous furor over the death of the penny: it’s a concrete position that stands up in the face of more nuanced political policy. It might not be a sound argument, or a right one, but by damn, it’s something everyone can understand.
[...] Read More… [...]