Afghanistan: Canadian JTF2 to hunt al-Qaeda

[drunknsubmrnr]

If there is no excuse for what a few soldiers did, then why are you providing one?

Which part of "There's no excuse" did you not understand?

I was not aware that torturing and murdering prisoners was part of government policy.

It wasn't. However, it was government policy of both parties to promote based on "political correctness" over ability to lead. This was the primary cause of the discipline problems in the Airborne Regiment.

As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure no such policy ever existed, so it would seem these soldiers took it upon themselves to do what they did.

They did. However, it was directly caused by a lack of leadership at all levels. If someone had exercised leadership at either the policy or military level, that incident wouldn't have happened.

I, for one, was a voter at that period in time. I do not at all feel responsible for the actions of "a few soldiers in the Airborne."

Bully for you. I was in the CF at the time, and I hold you, among others, partially responsible for what happened.

Kevin

 

[GeekyBoyTO]

drunken:

They did. However, it was directly caused by a lack of leadership at all levels. If someone had exercised leadership at either the policy or military level, that incident wouldn't have happened.

No, the prime cause must be on the person who committed the act itself. The circumstances might exacerbate the problem, but on any given day, the environment can always generate situations whereby the possiblity of criminality can occur - it is the person who makes the ultimate decision that must bear the responsibility.

GB

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

No, the prime cause must be on the person who committed the act itself.

Prime cause? Sure. The only cause? No.

The politicians and senior leadership of the CF created a situation where something like the Somalian incident was inevitable. This doesn't absolve the people who actually committed the crimes of responsibility, it adds to the culpability of their superiors and the Canadian people.

Kevin

 

[fiendishlibrarian]

drunkn: I have heard for years that the main problem in the old Airborne Regiment was the presence of rogue elements of the 22nd Van Doos, a Quebec regiment considered untouchable due to the policital correctness you mentioned. Was this the case? Was not Col. Serge Labbe a Van Doo?

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

I wouldn't attribute all of the problems to the VanDoos. The PPCLI had a hand in them as well.

Kevin

 

[bizorky]

Bully for you. I was in the CF at the time, and I hold you, among others, partially responsible for what happened.

Actually that makes you far more responsible, if one is to follow your reasoning (or lack thereof). So why did you not put any effort into stopping what was going on?

 

[bizorky]

Which part of "There's no excuse" did you not understand?

If you blame others for the actions of a few, then you are providing an excuse for their actions. I though this would be clear to you, because that is exactly what you did. For example, when you suggest that the actions of some airborne soldiers are the fault of their commanders, people at DND headquarters, members of parliament and the voters who put them there, you are providing an excuse. You are attemting to blame others for the criminal actions of a few. Is it more clear now?

You have provided not evidence at all and no clear link between individual citizens in Canada, all members of parliament, and so on, with the actions of a small number of individuals in the airborne. I'm surprised you have not shafted everyone in the entire military for the actions of a few, or are you unwilling to share in the "responsibility" you find so easy to dole out onto others?

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

If you blame others for the actions of a few, then you are providing an excuse for their actions.

Evidently you didn't understand the entire concept of "There's no excuse...". Just because the situation was ripe for abuse like that is no excuse for their actions.

I blame the soldiers that took part, and their superiors, for what happened in Somalia. I blame the politicians and the voters for creating a climate in which incidents like that were inevitable. Somalia wasn't the only time something like that occured.

You have provided not evidence at all and no clear link between individual citizens in Canada, all members of parliament, and so on, with the actions of a small number of individuals in the airborne.

That would require at least a book. Try "Who killed the Canadian Military?" by Granatstein and "Tarnished Brass" by Taylor.

I'm surprised you have not shafted everyone in the entire military for the actions of a few, or are you unwilling to share in the "responsibility" you find so easy to dole out onto others?

I did "shaft" the people in positions of authority who allowed the rot to fester and spread. I wasn't in a position of authority, and my last association with the Airborne Regiment ended several years before that incident. This isn't about me.

Kevin

 

[bizorky]

I understand the concept of "there is no excuse." I will repeat myself when I say that, in fact, you went on to provide one. Let's just agree to disagree before this thread gets off topic.

You assert that it's not about you. Fine, but don't make it about everyone else. As you are a Canadian citizen and no doubt vote, you could only lump yourself in the "who's to blame" category. This would be a pointless excercise.

As for the military and its role and purpose in Canada, if you are suggesting that a lack of clear policy is a present and persistent problem for it, then I would agree with you.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Let's just agree to disagree before this thread gets off topic.

Right. Nothing like something something indefensible, and then switching the topic when you're called on it.

You assert that it's not about you.

In this particular case, it's not. I'd just reached the age I could vote, but hadn't yet. I do bear a measure of responsibility for what happened after that though, just like the rest of the voters do.

As for the military and its role and purpose in Canada, if you are suggesting that a lack of clear policy is a present and persistent problem for it, then I would agree with you.

That's not what I said. The policies have been reasonably clear. The problem was that the government and NDHQ only paid lip service, if anything, to their own policies.

Kevin

 

[Fighting Madd]

I'd give up on biz, Kevin, he's already made up his mind and is not looking for a discussion.

 

[GeekyBoyTO]

No offense, but the first thing that was mentioned re: Somalia was an externalization fo the problem, not the ultimate responsibilities of the individuals who committed the crimes.

GB

 

[bizorky]

If you want to go on about it, fine. I just think we are off topic and likely to bore everyone else. Fighting Madd, the interesting thing is this, drunkn is suggesting that politicians, voters, etc., bear responsibility for the actions of a few soldiers in Somalia. I am saying that it is the soldiers alone who bear the responsibilities for their actions. In other posts you have suggested that abusers of VLT's have only themselves to blame for their abuses of these devices when in fact they would like to attribute blame to casinos and governments. So which is it? Is society to blame or does the responsibility lie with the individuals when there is a clear case of abuse and excess?

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

I said that politicians, voters, etc., bear SOME responsibility for the actions of a few soldiers in Somalia, while the soldiers themselves bear the rest.

Kevin

 

[EnviroTO]

^ The responsibility shared outside the military for events in Somalia would be very very limited. The only way to be sure that bad eggs aren't in the military would be to have control over the hiring, training, and weeding out processes that could result in these bad eggs being there. How many politicians have ever voted on a military hiring and how many normal citizens? The widest array of options given to voters is choosing a party that supports spending more or a party that supports spending less. Of those two options, only spending less, to the point the Canadian Forces couldn't have afforded to be in Somalia at all, would have guaranteed that the events in Somalia wouldn't have happened. Voting for a party that would spend more would give the public no greater assurance that bad eggs wouldn't be put on assignments in Somalia.