Would a Swiss military model promote better international relations?

A_J wrote:

"Selling themselves as mercenaries" is hardly the "Swiss military model" today, outside of a few Swiss soldiers in the Vatican.

I realize that, and I believe the same would apply to Canada. The good think though is that it would be a useful rhetorical line against foreign invasions. If any Canadian citizen pushes for the creation of an offensive military force to fight some other country, it would be easy enough to tell him that if he sincerely believes in that cause, and he's trained to fight, then he's free to go and volunteer all he wants.

Quote:

And no, it would not be a good thing to premise a country's military on simply allowing its citizens to go abroad and take up arms, causing whatever trouble they like. You want democratic control over a country's military and foreign policy, not a do-it-yourself approach. How long do you think it would be until a Canadian is caught or killed abroad on the wrong side of a war and the other state party (rightfully) criticizes Canada for doing nothing (by design) about the activities of its citizens?

Is that not the case already? In principle, what is there stopping a Canadian from crossing the border and applying to join the US military? So what would be the difference? The main difference from what I can see is that since nearly all Canadians would be in the military, they'd think a little more seriously about voting a militaristic party into power, as is the case in Switzerland.

Quote:

Anyway, the Swiss military model actually consists of a large militia and mandatory military service. Oh, and a proliferation of military weapons kept and maintained in people's homes.

With that, there aren't many more resources left to develop an offensive force, right? And most of what you describe above is ideal for a defensive war, not an offensive one.

Ken Burch wrote:

Training solely to defend one's territory from external attack(although there'd have to be an exemption requiring the troops not to be used against internal worker uprisings as they were in 1932 in the U.S when General Macarthur started mowing down the Bonus Army or 1935 when the RCMP mowed down the unemployed legions of the "On To Ottawa trek" movement after their train was ordered stopped in Regina, for example,) is not a bad idea.  We've pretty clearly established at this point that there couldn't possibly be any good reasonf for the U.S. or Canada to military intervene in any other countries.

It would also be helpful if the forces were encouraged to develop more of a "people's army" mentality, as the Dutch army has.

Remember, if this were a citizen-army, then workers themselves would be members. It could prove a little tricky for an army to attack itself.

Ken Burch wrote:

Would your proposal respect the notion of conscientious objection, machjo?  if so, would it include provisions for "alternative service"(such as work in hospitals or helping rebuild impoverished areas of the country)?

I think that would be a good idea.

Again, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em? Instead of attacking their policies, just point out how they themselves are not living up to their own standards.

Actually, I think the idea of a citizen army would likely put the Canadian right in a tight spot. Some on the right do spport foreign invasions, while others are more in favour of domestic defense. I'm sure that such a proposal on the part of a left-wing party would likely through a wedge right between major right wing camps in a big way.

Frmrsldr wrote:

Machjo wrote:

Who'd e stopping them from putting their money where their mouth is, pay their own way to Afghanistan, buy their own weapons, and fight to their hearts' content?

After all, isn't it the conservatives who are always criticizing the nanny state that always wants to pamper us? Well, this would be their chance to prove with conviction that they don't need the nanny state to fight a war in Afghanistan. They could go out and fight with their own hard-earned money. Besides, isn't that what the free market is about?

People like Jean Chretien, Paul Martin, Stephen Harper, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, etc. and all pro war and military nationalist citizens are "useful idiots" (sock puppets) for the arms industry, the oil industry, the mining industry, the Pentagon and the U.S. Defense Department. They want as many wars as possible to last as long as possible. That is how they make their living; through other people dying - the profit of murder and destruction.

What you are saying is very dangerous, Machjo. They don't like to hear that kind of talk. Anything that eats into their profits, I mean.

Oh my. You're not accusing Harper of being a corporate socialist nanny-statist who believes in big military government are you?

No, no, not Harper. He would never increase government spending and put us into deficit, would he? And certainly he would never ask that we be forced to fund a war we never chose. Of course not. And I can't imagine he'd support something and not stand by it with his own cash now would he?

Ok, ok, you'rs right. He would. He did.

Webgear wrote:

We should not forget about the big unions, the CAW gets very pissed off when they don't get those big military contacts.

The may be against the war but they sure like building equipment for the war.

This is one reason I think it's not a good idea for the NDP or any party for that matter to be too closely affiliated with the Union movement. I personally know a few union members and government workers who are about as conservative as they get. And even when they're not particularly ideological, we need to distinguish between unionists on principle and unionists for profit. Some are in the labour unions strictly for how it can benefit them personally, to hell with society.

If let's say the NDP were independent of the union movement, it would make it easier for the NDP to stand on principle even when it could hurt the unions. To take an example, imagine a unionized cigarette factory or seal hunting association.

Another point on unions is that sometimes you could come across a person who's not a union member but is at least sympathetic to progressive ideas, just as you can have a unionized subversive. The NDP would be wise to detach itself from the union movement.

Also, I'm courius. How does the NDP build ties with the potentially non-socialist peace movement while maintaining ties with what Frmrsldr refers to as 'pink' non-marxist unions. Also, how does it build ties with groups that don't call themselves socialist but which have similarities with socialsits none-the-less while keeping its distance from organzations that call themselves socialist but which couldn't be any more distant from socialism?

If the NDP gets too stuck on names alone, then it will climb into bed with any group that calls itself socialist while burning bridges with progressive groups that don't identify themselves as such. Obviously, it would be preferable to burn bridges with groups that call themselves socialist but aren't while maintaining or ven building ties with progressive groups that don't call themselves so.

It's a matter of looking beyond names and labels, and unfortunately I think the NDP has fallen into the trap of names and labels.

Interesting experience here: I was discussing the question of adopting a Swiss military model for Canada, and he'd argued that it would be a bad idea because too many are 'liberal pussies' (his words, not mine).

When I'd brought up the whole idea of personal responsibility (to defend the country in this case), which I thought was a hallmark of conservative apologetics, oops, but the military is an exception. Most people don't understand military strategy, as he argued, and so we need a professional force to be able to exert our influence abroad, not a citizen-army to defend Canadian soil at home. The rest of the population have the duty to fund this force well.

Wow, he seemed to through all of his conservative talking points about personal responsibility and such right out the window, all in support of a big military bureaucracy, the very thing conservatives would usually oppose for anything other than the military.

I was surprised. I'd have thought the right would have supported the idea of personal responsibility for national defense, only to come across a comment that the general population can't be trusted with the defense of the country. So much for democracy when you can't trust the people.

Perhaps this is something that really could be a touchy issue for the right. I could see some on the right supporting such an idea, but bear in mind they're also likely to be more about personal responsibility and grassroots participation, not about taking over other countries. The other right would likely fight tooth and nail against this since it wold eliminate the country's ability to wage war abroad.

Maybe this could be the issue that could break the backbone of the right.

PraetorianFour wrote:

I don't think anyone is going to buy into soldiers keeping their assault rifles and machineguns at home or mandatory military service.

Those kind of things can't be adopted over night. I don't think Canada is ready for that, it's just not us.

Doctrine wise having a defensive only force has many draw backs.

Wether one likes it or not the Government uses the military as a political tool as much as a defenseive one, if not more.

Why should we need anything other than a defensive force. You guys sound about as bad as the right.

Also, do you honestly believe that I myself agree 100% with every idea I present. Sometimes I'll present an idea more as a brainstorm than as something I myself am committed to. So I take it that you sensor yourself out of fear of being ridiculed for an idea you may be curious about, never expressing any idea unless you're fully convinced that you agree with it first or that it agrees with others in your circle? That seems to e very limited thinking in my opinion.

PraetorianFour wrote:

Machjo wrote:

PraetorianFour wrote:

I don't think anyone is going to buy into soldiers keeping their assault rifles and machineguns at home or mandatory military service.

Those kind of things can't be adopted over night. I don't think Canada is ready for that, it's just not us.

Doctrine wise having a defensive only force has many draw backs.

Wether one likes it or not the Government uses the military as a political tool as much as a defenseive one, if not more.

 

Why should we need anything other than a defensive force. You guys sound about as bad as the right.

 

You seem pretty defensive in your posts here and below.

Just because people didn't support you're theory doesn't mean you need to get your nose bent out of shape.

I'll tell you why your defense only theory doesn't work tomorrow if you're still interested.

I have no issue with anyone tearing down my arguments. In fact, even I am not totally convinced about the idea myself. My issue was with a post above suggesting that my ideas should be considered not on their own merits but rather on who I am or what I've said before. That's just plain illogical. Debunk the idea all you want, but on its own merits not on who I am or what I may have said before or what I may stand for in your mind.

Now as for an offensive force, yes I'll take my words back on that front. There is a legitimate argument for an offensive force, and generally speaking I'd choose a professional army as opposed to a citizen-militia.

My concern tough is with such an offensive capability being abused. So how do we strike the fine line between an ability to project offensive force and the responsibility to exercise restraint in its use?

One possible solution I could see would be the gradual replacement of a national military force with an international one directly under UN or some other similar international authority (though it would need to e an organization we could all trust).

If that's not possible, then maybe a citizen-force is a next-best alternative. So while I would normally favour a professional force over a citizen-force, I could make an exception if that professional force is under the total control of one national government, thus allowing it to use that force for its own national interests as opposed to those of the peoples of the world.

I guess another way to look at it is that my first choice would be a professional international military force. My second choice would be a national citizen-militia like what the Swiss have. And my last choice would be a national professional military force, owing to the lack of checks and balances in ensuring that it be used in the best long-term interests of the human race as opposed to the short-term interests of only one country.

Fidel wrote:

During the cold war, it's been said in recent years that the Sovs actually did prefer for buffer countries to be militarily neutral. It was  western countries that pushed for non-neutrality in those countries on the Sovs front doorsteps. And now that the cold war is over, we still have NATO in Europe and pushing into countries farther East, even though western leaders told Gorbachev and Sovs that this wouldn't occur if German re-unification was to happen.  The lead NATO dog is the only superpower with nukes stationed on foreign soil and allegedly protecting Europeans from a cold war threat that doesn't exist anymore. Warmongering plutocrats in North America have been pushing for a colder war ever since 1991.

And this is one area where I run into problems. Yes, I prefer a professional force over a citizen-force, but only if I can trust the government to use that force responsibly. Otherwise, I'd prefer a citizen-force. Sure a citizen-force has the disadvantage of being an ineffective offensive force, but when we don't trust our government to use the offensive capabilities of a professional force responsibly, then I'd be willing to sacrifice our offensive capabilities at least until we can establish a professional force with the appropriate checks and balances to ensure that it use its offensive capabilities responsibly.

Again, it's not that I prefer a citizen-force to a professional force in principle, but rather pragmatically that I think it better to have such a force for now until maybe some kind of international and neutral professional force could eventually replace it.

Another issue I see with a national professional force is redundancy. Each country has its own force, yet how frequently is it deployed in most countries? Sharing a force between many countries could save much money, demilitarize the world significantly, and still provide more than adequate protection.