Soldiers hello

Looks like you've got your work cut out for you, Realigned.

I'm a former member of the CF myself. I grew up in military communities and many of the children joined the forces themselves, so I wasn't alone. I had no other framework through which to view the world and felt that joining the military, in a traditionally male trade, would gain me equality with men.

I thought it was true, for awhile, but a series of events, which today would be called sexual harassment, planted the seed of change within me and has continued growing. I have done a 180 in terms of the way I look at the world and in the politics that I embrace. Despite the misery of the experience that brought me there, I can say that I am very glad to have left that worldview and the military environment.

I guess I would have to say that my personal ethos is all around the Golden Rule: that I treat others the way I would wish to be treated. It doesn't have to take shape within a religious context but that sums up why I espouse the philosophies and large "P" politics that I do. I fervently desire peace, equality, human rights, freedom in its many aspects (and not the narrow definition used by those with power), a decent roof over my head, food to eat, access to health care when I need it, a clean environment, educational opportunities, etc...and I want the same for my children, my neighbours, members of my community, my province, my country and my world.

How to bring that about is the subject of much debate but my firmly held belief is that warfare is the antithesis of this position. You may write my comments off as naive (I hope not, given my snapshot into my background and experiences) but I believe that violence begets violence and thus, by involving ourselves in a combat mission in Afghanistan, we squander resources that could be used for people's well-being in all kinds of ways. Combat as a response not only kills people but it takes limited resources and uses them for destruction.

We cannot bring about peace through war, we cannot force our version of democracy (which isn't really democracy, it's capitalism) onto people who don't want it, we cannot force equality for women onto a society, we have no business putting you and other members of our military at risk and we have no business occupying another country for our own ends. That's my view of Afghanistan but not in its entirety, for sure.

It's interesting to me that you are here -- I hope it's truly to be open to other points of view. Perhaps you, too, are ready to see the world differently.

No, women are still in combat roles.

 

 

The [url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/women-cdnmilitary.html]CBC backgrounder on Women in the CF[/url], last updated in May, 2006, says that there were "approximately 230" female CF personnel in Afghanistan at that time. It also says two percent of combat troops are women.

Has that changed radically? 

What you are reading now is an annoying and obtrusive tag line. Why not Email Michelle to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith? I'm sure she would appreciate your support for this initiative.

Hey Realigned, welcome to babble.  :)

Indeed. 

Welcome, Realigned.

There's several subjects here already that will make good threads on their own, and I hope you contribute to them and start a few.

The main reason that women are under-represented among the casulaties is that women are only about 2% of the infantry.  Other branches of the Combat Arms have higher proportions, but the bulk of the casualties have been infantry.

Hi Spector

What is this rant about "tag lines" about. Please explain what a tagline is and why it is apparently so awful

 

Jake 

I can agree that we look at this differently and respect your views, too. I'm also glad to hear of your tears when confronted with a little girl's agony and loss -- it tells me that your humanity is still vibrant, in spite of being exposed to terrible things. Dehumanization is one of the factors that allow wars to continue. I also don't have any problem at all believing that individual acts of kindness happen many times and in many ways in your part of the world but I don't believe that "our" presence in Afghanistan is helping bring peace at all. At this point, the reports are that foreign occupation isn't even resulting in a reduction in conflict.

I see the presence of armed guards (soldiers, or police officers as in your example of domestic violence) not, in spite of the dictionary definition you cited, as peace-making at all. It may be that those scenarios at times, prevent escalation of conflict, but they don't really lead to peace-making in the end. Yes, the immediate result is (in the best case scenario, that is) a reduction in violent behaviour, but without tools, skills and motivation, the ability to maintain true peace is precarious, if achieved at all.

Cyprus is a good example. How many years was the presence of armed guards required to "maintain the peace" there? It was in the decades -- none of the parties in conflict had the tools, skills or probably motivation to figure out how to live on that island harmoniously and, hence, there was seen to be a need for armed soldiers to keep a barrier between the opposing sides so that there wasn't an escalation of conflict.

When police officers come to a home where conflict is underway, they too can provide protection, but only to a point. How long can we reasonably expect to keep police officers in the picture to prevent another outbreak of conflict? The ideal objective, in my view, is to give the parties the ability to work toward reconciliation, at least to the point where violence is not the response.

Of course, none of this addresses such issues as power dynamics (such as are often present between men and women in domestic violence and which are present in Afghanistan), colonialism (such as is underway by the US) or the effect of money.

Also, fear is used and manipulated by those who have other interests -- an example would be (on the smaller scale) the sales pitch of security companies. They use fear to motivate people to buy their product, which lines their pockets but undermines trust in society, which undermines the ability of people to resolve issues properly. Fear has also been used to propagandize the population in western countries so that "we" are fearful of being attacked in our beds by...(you name the current enemy du jour).

Anyway, I digress. So, the way I see it, we have peace-keeping, which is to reduce the presence of conflict but does not address the underlying problems (and exposes a third party, the peace-keepers, to trauma and potential desensitization to pain and suffering) and, peace-making, which has the goal of reducing conflict but also gives people the tools to approach conflict to address the underlying issues in peaceful ways.

unionist wrote:

The Soviets too came there with "long term views" and "goals of rebuilding". Then, they had to retreat in disgrace, 15,000 Soviet corpses and more than 1 million dead Afghans later.

And there is quite a bit of hidden history with the Soviet "invasion" of Aghanistan and all, Realigned.

Afghanistan, Another Untold Story by Michael Parenti

Some real history

Realigned wrote:

  Currently, locals who work with ISAF live in fear-and rightly so. They get kidnapped and murdered....One of my big fears is that  if say we pull out our forces, what's going to happen to all the friends I've made who have worked with me...Who have worked on the bases....Are they going to get punished? Murdered?

Yes, it is inevitable.  Aside from taking them all with you when you leave, their future, and their immediate families future, are grim.  Ultimately all you will end up leaving behind is crumbling and destroyed infrastructure and the destroyed lives of your 'friends.'  On the balance of things, despite what you are being told, you will leave that place doing far more harm than good.  But don't let any of that get you down as it did with me after my tour, because after all, the Americans are now coming into the area to help you out with your endeavors.

realigned wrote:

Many of them were children.

Oh yes, if all else fails pull out the tired trope: "think of the children"! Give us freakin break on your propaganda spewing, eh!  I will reiterate again what unionist said, "you're not the good guys", you are there destroying a country, and it's peoples, and most likely you're destroying the lives of your families. There is nothing good, nor noble in your actions. If indeed you are who you ay you are though it is  growing ever more obvious you are not. 

And did ya ever think if your and you cohorts were not there, those children would not be injured?!And thousands would not be dead. If you gave a damn about those Afghan children you would leave immediately!

So spare us your tears, here okay?!  It doesn't make you a sensitive kinda guy, as your actions in even being there belie that! It makes you someone who is trying to BS us.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Realigned wrote:

Slumberjack, cool.  It's good for me to get perspectives from soldiers like you and Loretta. When you were here what role were you performing?

I'm not really at liberty to discuss my role, until I'm 85 years old, at which time, I intend to release a full account.  Why 85 you ask?  I don't know, no one has been able to convincingly tell me why either, except that it was on the de-indoc forms that we signed.

Why don't you take your war stories to [u][b][url=http://army.ca/]Army.ca[/url][/b][/u], where you'll find a more sympathetic crowd?

Well, if we keep getting ex or current army folks signing up with Babble, there is the off chance that we'll develop enough of a quorum to support the creation of our own mini-support group.  I'm joking of course....or am I.

Realigned wrote:

Don't take this the wrong way but ngitive posts are a huge waste of time and effort. I'm not going to bite back because when I do it;s going to be a feeding frenzie :)

If you do respond to the personal attacks in a similar manner, there is the possibility that you might not be able to continue posting to the site, because the mods might step in on their behalf to quell the disturbance.  It may in fact be the motivation behind the attacks.  Clever aren't they?

Incidentally, Realigned, I certainly don't "hate soldiers in Afghanistan". I have consistently reported their deaths over the years and expressed my sympathies for their families.

But a soldier in Afghanistan who goes around justifying Canada's presence there is as repugnant as any other warmongering propagandist, perhaps more so.

It is Stephen Harper and your commanding officers who "hate soldiers in Afghanistan". They place them in harm's way in an evil cause. And every time another young person is maimed or killed, they shed crocodile tears and pledge to redouble their evil efforts. 

In 2002.  I really didn't have any high aspirations or idealism as to the nature of our involvement,  it was one of those be there or be square choices, as is often the case with the 100% liability clause that comes with the terms of service.  With our eight year about to begin, any positives are superficial and manufactured with public opinion in mind.  There have been no tangible gains made and the only real results have been more deaths on both sides.  This is all that will ever come of it.

Slumberjack

 

I like BGen Thompson the most of the previous commanders. I think he is true concerned about his soldiers compared to other generals. He just has a different manner of showing his emotions.