Ah, I get it now. In the US, military service is considered a good indicator of a man (or woman, I suppose) who is dedicated, hardworking, honest, and knows how to work in a formal heirarchical structure as well as command effectively.
The strange thing about this is that the US isn’t really concerned. We believe we have the money, men, technology, and expertise to successfully defend a vast nation just north of us. Such is life in the 21st century.
That last part, expertise, may be the most important though. Not to put too fine a point on it, though, but knowledge and skills, passed down through the ranks from man to man an soldier to soldier, really make an army. That could be something that Canada may lose. Which they would then have to rebuild in the event of a major conflict.
You know, what really irritates me is even while trying to debate him I knew RickJay was right. I’m not going to debate his points though I have to say I really like the “rubber meets the road” thing. never heard that. cool. Anyway, I really hate that the Canadian people as a whole are so willing to let our proud military history die. Though I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised since the disbandment of the Airborne regiment. THAT was a travesty. one of the finest military units in the world and we disband them because we don’t like how they play? Don’t get me started on that whole issue, the gist though is that when someone is conditioned to be an elite commando style soldier, they’re not going to be happy playing bridge. if you take my meaning. Do you know how many “sensitivity training” classes I’ve had to take because of that? Any clue what it’s like to serve in the military of a country that takes Canadian Armed Forces and makes it just Canadian Forces because Armed was too threatening? I could just scream. Still, while I get frustrated and angry sometimes, I am proud and happy to serve my country in this way. Even when it means sweeping snow off the streets of Toronto. (I was there, it sucked, nice city though. ) Maybe they should go ahead and just disband us. Because as everyone knows, the defence of Canadian interests is going to be the first priority for US armed forces right?
It’s a very minor issue. Very few people demand that a candidate be a veteran, but understandably they may win a few brownie points had they served (and rightly so). It’s certainly not a make-or-break issue (see Clinton vs. Bush 1992). I think you may be confusing a few recent controversies concerning avoidance of the Vietnam War. Clinton, Quayle, etc.
Now that Vietnam-era candidates have been reaching presidential candidate age, the issue of avoiding the draft has become an issue. Many candidates were able to avoid war through rich and influential familes, academic fortitude, friends in high places, etc.
Anyway, the avoidance of service in Vietnam is a minor issue. Clinton ran off to Oxford while Bush was shot down in WW2. Clinton won. I voted for Clinton as I did not see avoiding the Vietnam War as a huge negative. And as far as “requiring” someone to serve in the US Military to be elected is frankly untrue.
I may be displaying a bit of ignorance here, but I have no idea what Gore and Bush Jr’s military records were. As far as I know, it never became an issue in the 2000 election.
Aw, c’mon, B. You and I both know the disbandment had more to do with the Somalia debacle than anything else. Torturing and murdering a teenager isn’t “playing.” There’s a substantial difference between regular Army bullcrap and actually murdering someone.
It was a joke to disband the Regiment, of course, because the military and the government were effectively avoiding the discipline problems the Airborne had. “Instead of fixing this, we’ll just send the guys to different bases and have them wear different coloured berets” was the message they were sending. The officers in command concerning the murders in Somalia got away scot free. Cardinal Law would be the perfect Canadian army chaplain.
I served in the Forces, too, and I’m a bit skeptical of the Airborne’s claims that they were all that elite. They were disbanded because it was a politically expedient thing to do; on the surface it gave the impression that Something Was Being Done, By God. Of course, nothing really was.
I failed to address something else you mentioned:
You sure you’re in the Army? A full colonel commands a regiment. Canada’s ARMY is about divisional strength, and in fact has one division, which would rate a major-general, and you could make a lame argument that the general commanding the land forces as a whole should be a lieutenant-general because there’s more to the army than 1 Division (for instance, there’s CFCC.) Logically, the chief of staff should be roughly a lieutenant-general, since he’s commanding a division-strength army AND naval and air elements of essentially equal strength.
We shouldn’t have a full general, but we should have, by my count, at least a dozen generals ranging from brigadier to lieutenant. Even if you reorganized the Forces to get rid of all the stupid “Command” crap and absolutely stripped the ranks bare, and went back to army-navy-RCAF, you get 1 lieutenant general (Chief of Staff) 3 major-generals (1 Division, an Air Force general, and a Navy admiral) and at least ten brigadier generals - you need a brigadier for each of three brigades, two commodores for the Atlantic and Pacific fleets, some brigadiers for the Air Force, a brigadier in charge of reserve forces, a B-G running RMC, and the signals branch has traditionally had its own brigadier general.
As for the general concern; yeah, we could save a lot of money cutting down on senior officers. But the Forces HAS been cutting down on senior officers, and the military still costs us $12.7 billion. You aren’t going to save $3 billion directly by firing 60 generals.
Now, put yourself in a civilian taxpayer’s shoes; if you’re telling them the Forces is wasting billions on fat generals and trucks the Army didn’t even want (hello, LSVW) then why should the civilian taxpayer WANT to spend a penny more? They would, very reasonably, be inclined to believe that giving more money to such a screwed up armed forces is about as useful as setting it on fire. I would suggest that what the Canadian Forces needs isn’t more money - it’s a huge reorganization.
DARN YOU RICKJAY!!! Must you continually make me look like a schmuck. Upon some further research your estimate of the general officer requirement is close if not dead on. My information on the full colonel remark was based on an article by a disgruntled ex-military reporter. Lesson learned. In point of fact though I am not in the army. I’m Air Force thank you very much. I totally agree on the reorg thing. The real answer to Canada’s military problems is not to throw money at it, but in fact to do business smarter. however, we both know that the chances of that ever happening are slim to none.
In my comment about getting rid of the top heavy general ranks I should have included all the “retired” generals who are now on the payroll as “consultants.”
Ahhh yes. The LSVW - Low Speed Vehicle Wheeled. I remember it well from my days as a Me Start Engine Op. (For those of you scratching your head, these are Canadian Forces in-jokes. LSVW actually stands for Light Support Vehicle Wheeled, but when the military took delivery most of us MSE Ops noticed that it was very difficult to get the thing to go faster than 90kph. If you could get it up THAT fast. Also my trade was Mobile Support Equipment Operator. It’s a fancy name for “trucker”. MSE Op.) I am now a supply tech. by the way.
Anyway, the point here is that RickJay is correct. Though I was and still am in awe of the skills the Airborne possessed. They really screwed up in Somalia and were disbanded because the video of the hazing rituals was the last straw in the public eye. Disbanding them was the governments way of saying, “look what we’re doing. We’re solving a problem. No…no, don’t look over there, look here, see. No more problem.” Anyway, thanks for the attitude correction on this and the Arrow issues RickJay. I don’t like trying to debate you very much but at least I learned some things while you made a fool out of me.
) Maybe they should go ahead and just disband us. Because as everyone knows, the defence of Canadian interests is going to be the first priority for US armed forces right?