Afghanistan: Canadian JTF2 to hunt al-Qaeda

[drunknsubmrnr]

The responsibility shared outside the military for events in Somalia would be very very limited.

I'm afraid not. This wasn't a case of a few bad eggs. This was a case of systemic problems over decades, leading to where normal people lost the bubble. The Canadian people have a measure of responsibility for that.

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.

The politicians had that control, both through MND and through the budgetary process. However, they rarely exercised it. Usually MND was either a complete incompetent (ie Collenette) or had very odd ideas (ie Hellyer aka rat-bastard).

How many politicians have ever voted on a military hiring and how many normal citizens?

Every MND sets policy and policy execution, and they're usually assisted by other MP's as Deputy Ministers. Every MP has voted on DND's budget, and most have had a hand in setting priorities.

Every Canadian citizen with a vote gets to pick their MP's. Just because they don't like the results doesn't excuse their responsibility for what happened.

The widest array of options given to voters is choosing a party that supports spending more or a party that supports spending less.

This has nothing to do with money. This has everything to do with the politicians (Liberal & Conervative) striking a Faustian bargain with NDHQ where they largely stay out of how the generals run the military, while the generals stay out of politics. This would be widely known as "negligence".

The "rust-out" problems we have now have to do with money, but honestly a lot of money gets wasted by NDHQ. DND needs both a major budget boost and a re-org. Both seem to be happening now. FWIW, Graham & MacCallum have been superb, and that's not something I throw around easily.

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.

It would have, and did, happen elsewhere. There just wasn't as much publicity. This was an inevitable consequence of appallingly bad leadership. This problem looks like it's being taken care of also, but it'll take years to find out a definitive answer.

Kevin

 

[EnviroTO]

I'm afraid not. This wasn't a case of a few bad eggs. This was a case of systemic problems over decades, leading to where normal people lost the bubble. The Canadian people have a measure of responsibility for that.

You sold me. I'm not going to vote for any party that mentions increased military spending because giving money to a messed up untrustworthy military would be irresponsible and Canadians going to Somalia and screwing up are something people are going to make me responsible for as a voter. I don't trust that many politicians will get into micro-management which means the flaws in the military will not be solved. Not a single candidate in my riding mentioned changing the top brass in the military so I don't see any other option. Politicians run government on top level budgeting and only normally concern themselves with the very top member of each department... everything below that is something they barely consider. That isn't going to change with any of parties that currently exist. Lets get rid of the military, enable the RCMP and Coast Guard to protect the homeland, and in a few years start from scratch on the military. What other options to voters really have?

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

And that's exactly why this happened. Hopefully, enough people will try to fix the system instead of just shrugging off problems with a flip answer.

Kevin

 

[bizorky]

Difficile est tenere quae acceperis nisi excerceas.

 

[EnviroTO]

There is no point arguing with people that can blame someone for the shortcomings of another. I as a voter who has a full time job not related to the military is the one to blame for problems in Canada's military?? Pffft, give me a break. I am responsible for my actions not someone elses. I must of missed the party on the ballot with comprehensive plans for every department which perfectly suit the priorities of every voter.

Nobody else is going to be responsible when I don't do my job properly. The people that can be held responsible is limited to those that are in a position that requires them to know when there are problems and to deal with them, those who were there to see a problem and could have intervened, and those committing the crime... and of those people the ones that didn't commit the crime can only be held responsible for not doing their job.

 

[bizorky]

^Totally agree!

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

I am responsible for my actions not someone elses.

Sorry, but no. You're a citizen, and eligible to vote. If you don't like what happens, too bad. You're still responsible, just like every other voter is.

Kevin

 

[bizorky]

I think you have to make a careful separation between what actually is, and your personal opinion. Canada had no existing policy to torture sixteen year olds wandering onto military reserves in foreign lands. The soldiers who took part in the torture and murder of this individual acted for themselves, and themselves alone. They chose to act and only they are responsible for the murder they carried out. In fact, one of the soldiers did attempt to commit suicide. One can presume it was from recognizing his own responsibility for his actions.

 

[EnviroTO]

There is no political party that has a platform that can perfectly match every voter's interests. If all citizens run themselves because the other parties do not reflect their interests then everyone gets one vote and its all a tie. Sorry, there is no way a voter can be held responsible for the actions of a few people in a specific government department (people within the department being un-elected employees) that are not the result of a government decision... especially if the government in charge was not the one that was voted for. Unless you can tell me how I could have chosen a path that would alter the outcome in Somalia then I can't be held accountable. You can only be held accountable for your own actions. Only a murderer can be found guilty of murder (assuming no miscarriage of justice). Tell me your enlightened path that would have averted this problem had voters chosen differently.

 

[GeekyBoyTO]

Sorry, but no. You're a citizen, and eligible to vote. If you don't like what happens, too bad. You're still responsible, just like every other voter is.

Err, everyone is ultimately responsible for everything simply by existing - it doesn't mean that the prime cause of the debacle belongs to the voters. To overfocus on such diverts attention that it is the personal failure that causes the deaths, directly. End of debate.

GB

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

There is no political party that has a platform that can perfectly match every voter's interests.

True, but irrelevant, since the parties rarely carry through on their platforms anyway.

Sorry, there is no way a voter can be held responsible for the actions of a few people in a specific government department (people within the department being un-elected employees) that are not the result of a government decision.

I'm afraid there is. The voters are responsible for what the government does. Period. Just because the voters don't like the people who ran for office doesn't absolve them of the responsibility for what their government does.

Unless you can tell me how I could have chosen a path that would alter the outcome in Somalia then I can't be held accountable.

You're still accountable, for electing the people that sent those guys in. If you didn't like what happened, too bad. You're not the sole cause of the incident, but you are somewhat responsible.

You can only be held accountable for your own actions.

Nope. You voted, or chose not to vote. Therefore, you're responsible for the actions of the people you voted in.

Tell me your enlightened path that would have averted this problem had voters chosen differently.

Letting the government know exactly what you wanted them to do, and how their actions would affect your vote. Telling them defence was a priority. A lot of people could have stopped this incident. The only way it could have happened was through negligence on their part.

Kevin

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Err, everyone is ultimately responsible for everything simply by existing - it doesn't mean that the prime cause of the debacle belongs to the voters.

No, but the voters are responsible because of their vote. They actively made decisions that set up that situation, and they're responsible for those decisions. That doesn't make them the prime cause, but they still have some repsonsibility.

To overfocus on such diverts attention that it is the personal failure that causes the deaths, directly.

Untrue. A lot of people in that chain of command met the definition of criminal negligence. They're also responsible for what happened.

Kevin

 

[bizorky]

No, but the voters are responsible because of their vote. They actively made decisions that set up that situation, and they're responsible for those decisions. That doesn't make them the prime cause, but they still have some repsonsibility

Other than your opinion, find that portion of common law or practical ethics that supports this assertion. What you are arguing for is nothing more than the "society made me do it" or twinky-eating sugar diet defence.

I wonder, should we be surprised that former members of the airborne from that time have failed to carry out mass murder either then or now? Or is it individual actions that actually are always at the heart of the matter?

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Other than your opinion, find that portion of common law or practical ethics that supports this assertion.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence

What you are arguing for is nothing more than the "society made me do it" or twinky-eating sugar diet defence.

Not at all. The people that actually committed the crime still bear most of the responsibility. The people that negligently set up that situation bear the rest. I'd say that a lot of people in senior ranks in the military and in politics could legitimately meet the burden for criminal negligence causing death.

I wonder, should we be surprised that former members of the airborne from that time have failed to carry out mass murder either then or now?

Not at all. The people I knew in the Airborne were either very very good, or very very bad. Much more of the former than the latter. Unfortunately, a few of the bad ones were left unsupervised.

Kevin

 

[bizorky]

If we (the voters) are the defendants, illustrate as to how we were negligent when in fact no policy for supporting or promoting torture or murder existed either in military practice or the national foreign policy of Canada.

Quoting web sites is one thing, understanding them is something else. You clearly do not understand what you posted. Your assertion remains nothing more than your own opinion.