The defence policies of the current government are really starting to bother me. Talking about re-naming JTF-2, Canada's Special Forces unit, to the 1st SS Regiment was one thing. Now they've gone and done something really crazy. Defence Minister O'Connor, with a big proud grin on his face, announced yesterday that Canada was purchasing several M-777 mobile 150mm howitzers from the British. That must sound like a bunch of gobbly gook to most, so I'll explain exactly what the Harper government is preparing to buy from the British: big guns.
Currently, the biggest "gun" Canada has for its artillery units are 105mm howitzers- long-barrelled cannons that fire huge high-explosive shells long distances, blowing up buildings or huge swathes of people in one blast. The 150mm howitzer will have a much better range and the shells it will fire have a much more explosive yield as the cannon can fire larger shells. The bigger the bomb, the more explosives you can cram into it.
The problem with this is that we don't need bigger bombs or bigger guns. 105mm howitzers are, indeed, out-dated weapons. But, from a modern military perspective, artillery is a largely out-dated concept as well. Gone are the days when armies assembled in huge formations on tabletop battlefields to blow the snot out of one another. "Gentleman's warfare" is a thing that passed at the end of the Korean War. The insurgencies of Iraq and Afghanistan have been informed by the successes of guerrilla warfare against the archaic militaries of the superpowers. The Vietnamese beat the Americans because they presented no real target for the US war machine to strike, instead spreading out their forces and engaging in hit-and-run attacks. The Taliban beat the Soviet Union through the same means.
An artillery piece, by its nature, is created with the intention to devastate an enemy position. As the infantry move up and engage the enemy in fortified positions, they call for artillery support. The cannons, kilometres away from the fighting, then rain hot death on the enemy bunker. But the Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan do not have fortified positions. They do not have bunkers. And they do not have strong enough numbers to warrant the cost of the shells fired from the howitzer to kill them. They are not a standing army that occupies territory. They are, as the Harper government fails to understand, an insurgency that never stays in one place and requires a new way of thinking from the tactics of WWII.
Whose fault is it that these big guns were bought when the Department of National Defence could have bought equipment much more appropriate for the troops on the ground? Probably the officer corps within the Canadian Forces. There is still a very strong Cold War mentality within the officers of the prior generation, I found during my time in uniform. They were trained to fight an ultranationalist regime that could have seized power in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. When you've been raised with a certain set of preconceptions about how to do something, it's hard to learn a new way of doing it. But they're going to need to realize very quickly here that the Taliban are not Russians or Germans. They are not going to be so polite as to set their troops in nice rows for their howitzer shells to knock them down. What they are going to do, however, is use the addition of this mobile artillery to our arsenal as propaganda against the Coalition Forces. A way to get the local populace to turn against your occupation and back the insurgency is to make it easier for the insurgents to dehumanize you in the minds of the people. With the Canadian Army increasingly hiding away in armoured behemoths and touting city-destroying cannons, it will be very easy to paint the picture of Canada as conqueror.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Monday, December 18, 2006
Any Name But That Name
I thought I'd break away from this talk of international law and the politics of globalization for just a moment. Being formerly of the military, I still have a lot of friends still in the Canadian Army who keep me apprised of goings-on in the Canadian Forces. As we were, and some of my friends still are, in The Calgary Highlanders- the premier infantry Reserve unit in the country- a few people I knew wanted to someday become members of JTF-2. JTF-2, for those who don't know much about things military, is Canada's Special Forces unit. On top of that, JTF-2 is ranked as a Tier One counter-terrorism and special operations group which means it is considered to be of an equal level of ability and prestige as more famous Special Forces units in the world like the British Special Air Service (SAS) or the American Navy SEALs.
Joining the JTF-2 is difficult. Extremely so. And nearly all members of the unit are drawn from infantry regiments, almost exclusively being composed of crack troops from the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and The Calgary Highlanders. So having the dream or ambition of being JTF-2 in Canada is a big deal and requires huge amounts of work. It's a pity that becoming an Operator in such a well-trained unit is seen as being somehow "lower" in prestige as becoming a doctor or a lawyer, considering a person would have sacrificed far more to join JTF-2 than they would have getting through law school- and for far less pay.
So it is distressing, given the honour that is attached to Canada's Special Forces, that Defense Minister Gordon O'Connor has been proposing a name change to JTF-2. He is suggesting that the unit be named the First Special Services Regiment. Or, in other words, the 1st SS Regiment. As in the Waffen-SS, the elite troops of the Nazi German war machine who were beholden to the National Socialist Party and not to the German state. Obviously a lot of people in uniform are a bit anxious about this as they're having something they were prepared to sacrifice their entire lives for being turned into a parody.
Now I can understand the reason for a name change. JTF-2 has reached a near legendary status after its actions in Afghanistan. There is a story I heard while doing my infantry training that a JTF-2 sniper, during a sand storm near Kandahar, was able to snipe a driver of a jeep on a mountainside more than a kilometre away with a Heckler and Koch PSG-1 sniper rifle. That's a near impossible shot. Well, allow me to correct myself, that is an impossible shot. But these are the stories being told about our country's special forces not just to Canadian troops training at home, but to American, British and Dutch troops in Afghanistan. The troops from other countries, hearing the stories for the first time, naturally ask "What's JTF-2?" It's a little difficult to explain to someone why it is even called "Joint Task Force 2". What happened to Joint Task Force 1? Why is it "Joint"? No one really knows for sure why it was given the name it was given. There are a lot of theories flying around on the drill hall floors of the country's armouries. It was "Joint" because the original idea was that it would be a unit composed of both American and Canadian soldiers, fighting side-by-side, goes one theory. Another proposes that it is "Joint" because the unit, in theory at least, draws equally from the three branches of the Canadian Forces: Army, Navy and Air Force. But this theory falls flat on its face when you notice that nearly every member is drawn from two infantry units and the members are entirely Army.
The British named their Special Forces unit, after it was originally decimated during the Second World War as Unit 5 Commando, the 22nd Special Air Service Regiment. There were no preceeding units. This is not the 22nd iteration of the unit. It was just given the number. So why couldn't Mr. O'Connor come up with something else? The 16th Special Operations Regiment? The 403rd Elite Canadian Regiment? Seeing as so many members of the unit are drawn from regiments and battalions descending from the 110th Canadian Rifles, they could always name the unit "The Gallant Canadians" after the old poem written about that unit's heroic actions during the First World War.
On the fly, I've suggested three other things which JTF-2 could be named which would be more appropriate than having the Nazi connotations or the confusing "Joint Task Force" misnomer. But, for some reason, General Hillier had his mind switched off when he proposed this on the Defense Minister's behalf. Something quite out-of-character for the man as he's usually been well-put-together in the past. Maybe he just had a lapse in judgement.
If that's the case, however, he had better get a hold of himself soon. The men and women who have the guts to go after the glory of being in one of the world's most elite Special Forces units deserve better than a General who doesn't pay attention to what he names his units and the bad reputation that would go with being given a name similar to that which one of the most evil organization in the world was named. The job of JTF-2 is to worry about catching war criminals, not to be concerned with being associated with war criminals.
Joining the JTF-2 is difficult. Extremely so. And nearly all members of the unit are drawn from infantry regiments, almost exclusively being composed of crack troops from the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and The Calgary Highlanders. So having the dream or ambition of being JTF-2 in Canada is a big deal and requires huge amounts of work. It's a pity that becoming an Operator in such a well-trained unit is seen as being somehow "lower" in prestige as becoming a doctor or a lawyer, considering a person would have sacrificed far more to join JTF-2 than they would have getting through law school- and for far less pay.
So it is distressing, given the honour that is attached to Canada's Special Forces, that Defense Minister Gordon O'Connor has been proposing a name change to JTF-2. He is suggesting that the unit be named the First Special Services Regiment. Or, in other words, the 1st SS Regiment. As in the Waffen-SS, the elite troops of the Nazi German war machine who were beholden to the National Socialist Party and not to the German state. Obviously a lot of people in uniform are a bit anxious about this as they're having something they were prepared to sacrifice their entire lives for being turned into a parody.
Now I can understand the reason for a name change. JTF-2 has reached a near legendary status after its actions in Afghanistan. There is a story I heard while doing my infantry training that a JTF-2 sniper, during a sand storm near Kandahar, was able to snipe a driver of a jeep on a mountainside more than a kilometre away with a Heckler and Koch PSG-1 sniper rifle. That's a near impossible shot. Well, allow me to correct myself, that is an impossible shot. But these are the stories being told about our country's special forces not just to Canadian troops training at home, but to American, British and Dutch troops in Afghanistan. The troops from other countries, hearing the stories for the first time, naturally ask "What's JTF-2?" It's a little difficult to explain to someone why it is even called "Joint Task Force 2". What happened to Joint Task Force 1? Why is it "Joint"? No one really knows for sure why it was given the name it was given. There are a lot of theories flying around on the drill hall floors of the country's armouries. It was "Joint" because the original idea was that it would be a unit composed of both American and Canadian soldiers, fighting side-by-side, goes one theory. Another proposes that it is "Joint" because the unit, in theory at least, draws equally from the three branches of the Canadian Forces: Army, Navy and Air Force. But this theory falls flat on its face when you notice that nearly every member is drawn from two infantry units and the members are entirely Army.
The British named their Special Forces unit, after it was originally decimated during the Second World War as Unit 5 Commando, the 22nd Special Air Service Regiment. There were no preceeding units. This is not the 22nd iteration of the unit. It was just given the number. So why couldn't Mr. O'Connor come up with something else? The 16th Special Operations Regiment? The 403rd Elite Canadian Regiment? Seeing as so many members of the unit are drawn from regiments and battalions descending from the 110th Canadian Rifles, they could always name the unit "The Gallant Canadians" after the old poem written about that unit's heroic actions during the First World War.
On the fly, I've suggested three other things which JTF-2 could be named which would be more appropriate than having the Nazi connotations or the confusing "Joint Task Force" misnomer. But, for some reason, General Hillier had his mind switched off when he proposed this on the Defense Minister's behalf. Something quite out-of-character for the man as he's usually been well-put-together in the past. Maybe he just had a lapse in judgement.
If that's the case, however, he had better get a hold of himself soon. The men and women who have the guts to go after the glory of being in one of the world's most elite Special Forces units deserve better than a General who doesn't pay attention to what he names his units and the bad reputation that would go with being given a name similar to that which one of the most evil organization in the world was named. The job of JTF-2 is to worry about catching war criminals, not to be concerned with being associated with war criminals.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Problems of International Law
I recently finished my last final exam for this semester of University. The course, as you can guess from the title of this entry, was "International Law". My professor had one of the essay questions as a scenario whereby I was a third-party arbitrator from the International Court of Justice asked to resolve a territorial dispute between France and Britain. The object of the dispute: a fictitious island named "Sarkensy" located in the English Channel and suspected of having oil and ore deposits.
Being a cheeky fellow, the professor decided to throw in an added hitch to the case. The width of the English Channel, at the point where Sarkensy would be located, was 60 nautical miles. Conveniently, the Geneva Convention of the High Seas stipulates that the territorial waters of coastal states extend out 30 nautical miles from the shore line. So Sarkensy was located directly halfway between France and Britain and the conditions of my arbitration was that I not split the island between the two states. There had to be a clear and decisive winner to the case with no "happy endings" like the ICJ telling the two countries to suck it up and share the island.
The arguments offered by the two states in favour of their claims to title over the island and its surrounding waters were what interested me the most as were the conditions under which a state could claim such title. International Law, when it comes to these sorts of issues, is highly undemocratic. No one was asking the people living on Sarkensy which state they would rather be a part of. There was no question of whether the people of Sarkensy thought themselves French or British or simply just Human. Instead, the arguments being made were how many times and with what degree of frequency the two states exerted their sovereign jurisdiction over the island. France sent a government official to visit the island in 1930. But the British sent an official to visit in 1931. France prosecuted a company for some environmental law infringement on the island in 1998 but Britain prosecuted British nationals for crimes committed on the island in 1889, 1902, 1929 and 1956. Britain placed troops on the island during the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars.
All of this went on for two pages. But there was no mention of the people actually living on the island and whether they flew French flags or British flags- or both. It was a bit of a disturbing thought that law has become a bit disfigured during its transition from governing the lives of people on the local and national levels to the international level. It has become so caught up in its rules of fairness and balance that it has entirely become detached and distracted from the welfare of the people the law is intended to protect.
That leads to the question of exactly who international law is meant to benefit, who it is intended to protect. For the longest time, I had been under the impression that the law was meant to protect the lives of all- that everyone was equal before the law. An idealistic belief bound to natural law theory, I know. But it was what I believed: that law was bound at the hip to justice. Law and justice were one and the same. One could not exist without the other. But international law and the new world order following the Cold War further cements that the two can exist separately and do. The law, at least on the world level, cares nothing for the lives of the people on that fictional island in the English Channel just like it could care less about the lives of the people in Darfur- just like it is toothless to stop the Americans from waging illegal wars with impunity anywhere in the world they see fit.
Being a cheeky fellow, the professor decided to throw in an added hitch to the case. The width of the English Channel, at the point where Sarkensy would be located, was 60 nautical miles. Conveniently, the Geneva Convention of the High Seas stipulates that the territorial waters of coastal states extend out 30 nautical miles from the shore line. So Sarkensy was located directly halfway between France and Britain and the conditions of my arbitration was that I not split the island between the two states. There had to be a clear and decisive winner to the case with no "happy endings" like the ICJ telling the two countries to suck it up and share the island.
The arguments offered by the two states in favour of their claims to title over the island and its surrounding waters were what interested me the most as were the conditions under which a state could claim such title. International Law, when it comes to these sorts of issues, is highly undemocratic. No one was asking the people living on Sarkensy which state they would rather be a part of. There was no question of whether the people of Sarkensy thought themselves French or British or simply just Human. Instead, the arguments being made were how many times and with what degree of frequency the two states exerted their sovereign jurisdiction over the island. France sent a government official to visit the island in 1930. But the British sent an official to visit in 1931. France prosecuted a company for some environmental law infringement on the island in 1998 but Britain prosecuted British nationals for crimes committed on the island in 1889, 1902, 1929 and 1956. Britain placed troops on the island during the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars.
All of this went on for two pages. But there was no mention of the people actually living on the island and whether they flew French flags or British flags- or both. It was a bit of a disturbing thought that law has become a bit disfigured during its transition from governing the lives of people on the local and national levels to the international level. It has become so caught up in its rules of fairness and balance that it has entirely become detached and distracted from the welfare of the people the law is intended to protect.
That leads to the question of exactly who international law is meant to benefit, who it is intended to protect. For the longest time, I had been under the impression that the law was meant to protect the lives of all- that everyone was equal before the law. An idealistic belief bound to natural law theory, I know. But it was what I believed: that law was bound at the hip to justice. Law and justice were one and the same. One could not exist without the other. But international law and the new world order following the Cold War further cements that the two can exist separately and do. The law, at least on the world level, cares nothing for the lives of the people on that fictional island in the English Channel just like it could care less about the lives of the people in Darfur- just like it is toothless to stop the Americans from waging illegal wars with impunity anywhere in the world they see fit.
Kofi Annan perhaps said it best during his final speech as Secretary-General of the United Nations. We need an authority with the power to have authority over the states of the world. This might startle some but consider the federations of the world. In Canada, a system of checks-and-balances exist so that no single level of government can abuse its power. If the federal Government of Canada abuses its authority and powers, the provincial governments can hold it accountable and force it to change its ways through dozens of mediums. The same could be true of a limited federation between all of the 192 member states of the United Nations. It could work and would do so rather well. It's working in the European Union. It could work in the African Union if powerful member states of that intergovernmental organization like Nigeria were to step up to the plate and carry their weight in enforcing the judgements and decisions of the AU. And it's worked in the dozens upon dozens of federations in the world that include such successful countries as Canada, the United States of America, Germany, India- the list goes on.
The problem is that it won't happen. The Americans would never give up an ounce of national sovereignty unless they thought they could win it back- along with a little chunk of the sovereignty of other states within the same organization. Just look at the farce of the Organization of American States. The plan was to cow the countries of Latin America and Canada into a neo-imperial arrangement with America as the core and the rest of the two continents of North and South America as the economic periphery- dependent on American patronage to maintain export-oriented primary industry-focused economies. Disgustingly parasitic of the United States but crudely efficient at dominating the world for the past 60 years.
Ick. I'm becoming a realist.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Introduction: The Obsolescence of Nationality
I find myself in a unique and difficult position politically. Aside from the fact that I do not identify with any political party or, for that matter, political ideology, I find myself as a sort of spectator looking from the outside in when it comes to any aspect of politics aside from that found in relation to certain intergovernmental organizations like the United Nations or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I can speak at great length about foreign affairs and I can feel entitled to do so, but on the topic of "national" politics within a country that I am a citizen of, I do not feel this same entitlement. Why is this?
I am part of what is called "Generation E". For those who have not read "The United States of Europe" by T. R. Reid or "The European Dream" by Jeremy Rifkin, I offer a brief primer on the term. "Generation E" refers to those that have taken advantage of the now non-existent borders of the Schengen Area in mainland Europe, as laid down in the Treaty of Amsterdam, to enhance their lives and seek new opportunities. This results in people whose parents are Polish being born in Ireland, living in France and working in Germany. When the borders and delineations between nations are near non-existent, it becomes difficult for one to recognize the existence of these things people call "nations". It also becomes difficult to call oneself a member of any particular nation whatsoever. In my example, what is this person? Is he or she Polish because that is where their blood comes from? Or are they Irish because they were born on Irish soil? Both states would grant this person citizenships and, if this hypothetical person lives in France long enough, they could gain a French citizenship. Germany is still a bit reluctant when it comes to handing out citizenships, so that simplifies the mess a bit. But what if Germany did grant a citizenship to this person under the auspices that their genealogy originated in the Silesian German-speaking parts of Poland? Is this person Polish-Irish-French-German? Or is it just that we are finally realizing how absurd an idea nations and national borders are?
And so we come to my predicament. I was born and raised in Britain, have ties to Austria and now live in Canada. What am I? I don't feel a strong and passionate loyalty to any one state in the world. Don't get me wrong, I love living in Canada. I love Canadians. I served in the Canadian Forces for well over two years. But am I Canadian? I drink tea, not coffee. I watch fencing, not hockey. Friends are "mates" and "chaps" not "dudes". For appointments, I'm 30 minutes early while Canadians are five minutes late. For parties, I'm fashionably late whereas Canadians are unfashionably early.
But, at the same time, one has to also ask if I'm really British either. For all my distinctly British qualities and habits, I seem to be, for lack of a better term "international". Take my room, for example. On the walls are medals and course completion certificates from my career as an infantryman in the Canadian Forces, alongside a United Nations flag- a good luck charm I would carry around in my rucksack. Sitting on a display stand above the UN flag is a Katana- a Japanese sword used by the samurai which I train with (I've done Kendo since I was 9, Tae Kwon-Do since I was 8). My CD player will, at any given time, be playing music in French, German, Italian or Somali Cish. To make a long story short, I may be British-Canadian but my cultural influences and political ideas receive input from all over Europe, East Asia and the Middle East. I'm as much a product of globalization as a Lexus.
If I'm not truly Canadian, what right do I have to become involved in Canadian politics? If I don't feel that sort of all-consuming passion for ones country we call "patriotism" does that make me less of a Canadian? It's hard to say. But it is hard to make the case that I do have a right to become politically involved and that I am Canadian when the topics dear to me are on a global scale. I don't think locally or nationally all that well. I think about human rights in China, genocide in Sudan, security in Afghanistan, democracy in Russia- these sorts of things. And if a person puts human lives before Canadian lives, human interests before Canadian interests, how can that person be trusted with political power in Canada?
In the end, though, I think I am being pessimistic. Given a few years, I am quite sure I will have reconciled my confused national identity. I'm here to stay. Britain was nice, but Canada is nicer. And if I'm here to stay, I have an interest in the welfare of Canada as a country, a reason to think locally and nationally, and a right, just as much as someone born and raised in this country, to vote and, if I feel so inclined, to pursue political office.
So without any further adieu, allow me to introduce myself: My name is Paul. I'll be your political commentator, legal analyst, firearms expert, literary critic and writer with a tendency to blither uncontrollably. Enjoy your stay!
I am part of what is called "Generation E". For those who have not read "The United States of Europe" by T. R. Reid or "The European Dream" by Jeremy Rifkin, I offer a brief primer on the term. "Generation E" refers to those that have taken advantage of the now non-existent borders of the Schengen Area in mainland Europe, as laid down in the Treaty of Amsterdam, to enhance their lives and seek new opportunities. This results in people whose parents are Polish being born in Ireland, living in France and working in Germany. When the borders and delineations between nations are near non-existent, it becomes difficult for one to recognize the existence of these things people call "nations". It also becomes difficult to call oneself a member of any particular nation whatsoever. In my example, what is this person? Is he or she Polish because that is where their blood comes from? Or are they Irish because they were born on Irish soil? Both states would grant this person citizenships and, if this hypothetical person lives in France long enough, they could gain a French citizenship. Germany is still a bit reluctant when it comes to handing out citizenships, so that simplifies the mess a bit. But what if Germany did grant a citizenship to this person under the auspices that their genealogy originated in the Silesian German-speaking parts of Poland? Is this person Polish-Irish-French-German? Or is it just that we are finally realizing how absurd an idea nations and national borders are?
And so we come to my predicament. I was born and raised in Britain, have ties to Austria and now live in Canada. What am I? I don't feel a strong and passionate loyalty to any one state in the world. Don't get me wrong, I love living in Canada. I love Canadians. I served in the Canadian Forces for well over two years. But am I Canadian? I drink tea, not coffee. I watch fencing, not hockey. Friends are "mates" and "chaps" not "dudes". For appointments, I'm 30 minutes early while Canadians are five minutes late. For parties, I'm fashionably late whereas Canadians are unfashionably early.
But, at the same time, one has to also ask if I'm really British either. For all my distinctly British qualities and habits, I seem to be, for lack of a better term "international". Take my room, for example. On the walls are medals and course completion certificates from my career as an infantryman in the Canadian Forces, alongside a United Nations flag- a good luck charm I would carry around in my rucksack. Sitting on a display stand above the UN flag is a Katana- a Japanese sword used by the samurai which I train with (I've done Kendo since I was 9, Tae Kwon-Do since I was 8). My CD player will, at any given time, be playing music in French, German, Italian or Somali Cish. To make a long story short, I may be British-Canadian but my cultural influences and political ideas receive input from all over Europe, East Asia and the Middle East. I'm as much a product of globalization as a Lexus.
If I'm not truly Canadian, what right do I have to become involved in Canadian politics? If I don't feel that sort of all-consuming passion for ones country we call "patriotism" does that make me less of a Canadian? It's hard to say. But it is hard to make the case that I do have a right to become politically involved and that I am Canadian when the topics dear to me are on a global scale. I don't think locally or nationally all that well. I think about human rights in China, genocide in Sudan, security in Afghanistan, democracy in Russia- these sorts of things. And if a person puts human lives before Canadian lives, human interests before Canadian interests, how can that person be trusted with political power in Canada?
In the end, though, I think I am being pessimistic. Given a few years, I am quite sure I will have reconciled my confused national identity. I'm here to stay. Britain was nice, but Canada is nicer. And if I'm here to stay, I have an interest in the welfare of Canada as a country, a reason to think locally and nationally, and a right, just as much as someone born and raised in this country, to vote and, if I feel so inclined, to pursue political office.
So without any further adieu, allow me to introduce myself: My name is Paul. I'll be your political commentator, legal analyst, firearms expert, literary critic and writer with a tendency to blither uncontrollably. Enjoy your stay!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
