Concerns, the Armed Forces

[FiveParadox]

In opening, I wish to be perfectly clear that I do, and always have, supported the Canadian Armed Forces. I have never wished to have them placed in undue danger, nor have I ever wished to have them deprived of any equipment or supplies that they may have needed (despite arguments from some who may argue the contrary, in light of my well-known support for left-wing parties).

However, something made the Armed Forces seem ... for lack of a better term, more real to me. I was watching CPAC last night, when they began a rebroadcast of the service conducted for the late Corporal Paul Davis. Seeing his comerades crying, depicting stories of their childhood and youth, seemed to hit home for me — it showed the human side of the Canadian Armed Forces, instead of the action-oriented "machine" propagated by too much of the media.

The emotion and power of the things being said on that rebroadcast elicited tears from me (you can imagine the odd look my mother gave me when she stepped into the room to see her gay eighteen-year-old son, crying while watching CPAC — she had entered at the end of the broadcast, while they were airing that ten-seconds-too-long "created by cable for Canadians" sequence).

Which brings me to my point. The Canadian Armed Forces protects us — and they have demonstrated to us that they do a damned fine job of it, too. However, we have a responsibility — to be exercised through our representatives in the House of Commons and, if necessary, our Senate — to protect them, too. We should never put them in a situation where the objectives are unwarranted, where the endeavours are too dangerous relative to the result, or where we don't have the resources to support their presence there.

This needs to be discussed, at length; Afghanistan is a dangerous place right now, and we need to ensure that we are positive that we should have our Armed Forces stationed there. To be frank, I don't care, in particular, what the House of Commons may have decided in the deployment of our soldiers to a foreign land. That was the prerogative of a previous Government, in a previous Parliament. We should discuss this again, now — not to remove the Canadian Armed Forces, of course; to do so would be inappropriate at this time.

However, we should discuss the longer-term objectives and endeavours of this mission. We need to discuss the timeframe for which we are going to keep our soldiers there, relative to our projections of progress thus far. We need to discuss any safeguards that we could put into place to ensure that accidents, or other deaths, do not occur again in Afghanistan as they have before (or at least to minimize the chances thereof). We need to ensure that our Armed Forces are as safe as possible.

I am going to be contacting Sukh Dhaliwal, M.P., the Member for Newton—North Delta and Associate Status of Women, Seniors and Multiculturalism Critic for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, urging him to request a take-note debate — or, if absolutely necessary, an emergency debate — in the interest of bringing concerns in relation to the Armed Forces in Afghanistan to the forefront, to bring up suggestions to improve their safety, performance and effectiveness, and to ensure that this mission is worth the tragedy.

I would urge the concerned membership of Canadian Content to do the same.

:!: (Revision) Revised the title of the thread, resolved a typing exception (paragraph seven).

 

[Sassylassie]

The person to best answer your questions Five is The Chief of Defense Staff not a Government debate. A time frame and mission statement is imposible to give everything is fluid and moving fast the best you could hope for is a Public Monthly Briefing. Most of Canada has no idea how much the Men and Women in forces see with in their ranks. The Swiss Air Crash had are guys and gals fishing/ or picking up body parts, human remains, baby shoes, air craft parts for months. The air force and Navy did an amazing and compasionate job of treating these human remains. You can't imagine the effect this had on those who where part of this deployment. I can recant many Domestic Stories on what our wonderful Military has done, and none of it was pleasant but they did what was asked.

 

[FiveParadox]

That does not mean, Sassylassie, that the citizens of Canada must live with whatever decision we make without consideration, debate or suggestions of variations thereon in the meantime. There is no reason for this Government of Canada to deny the right of the House of Commons to discuss whatever matters it deems appropriate.

General Rick Hillier, the Chief of the Defence Staff has done an amazing job. However, he does not make the decisions — under most circumstances, rather, he acts on them. The elected body makes the decisions in relation to the action of the Canadian Armed Forces and, therefore, we must ensure that we do not censor the right of the House to discuss this issue.

 

[Sassylassie]

That is what they teach you from text books, but in reality most decsions are made behind closed doors with lobbest and special interest groups and poll results. What is the purpose of discussing a decision that was made five years ago, our boys know the risk and don't need the arm chair Military crowd debading what their doing the decision was already made. It demorilizes the our active Military with all this brew ha-ha. Why do you want it debated again.

 

[FiveParadox]

It should not break the spirit of the Canadian Armed Forces to know that Canadians care enough about them to continue to consider any options that are available to us. If we are to recognize ourselves as a democracy, we must recognize the right of the House of Commons to discuss this topic.

 

[Curiosity]

Five

Do the Canadian military have blogs where people can read their daily posts and send them e-mails, etc.?

I learned a great deal (am still learning) from the milblogs down here and became good friends with one Captain and his unit....
by the internet. If they were silent for a few days, it became a worry..... but then they would come back tired and grateful to have made it.

They lost a few and those were tragic moments but he would write about those things too and talk about the men who died and their families.

I hope the Canadians have a way of contacting their families if not the general public.

 

[FiveParadox]

Not that I know of; but if anyone does know of something like that up here in Canada, I would be exceedingly grateful for a link or resource of that sort.

 

[Mogz]

RE: Concerns, the Armed F

*rubs temples*:

1. We do not need a debate. This was done back in 2001 and I fail to see the need for another one. Just because you haven't been following Afghanistan since the War started that doesn't mean the goals, objectives, and risks weren't clearly laid out. My friends and family have been in the loop since 2001 and they know why we're there. They know the risks, and they support our troops. Think of it like this; if you never payed attention in math class all semester, does that give you the right to demand the whole class be taught to you in full the morning of the final exam? Your ignorance is not the fault of the Government, nor the Military. In that regard let me point out again that the Liberals approved this mission. Your politcal party sent the lads over there, now you expect them to call for a debate on their own operation. Sound odd to you Five? Paul Davis' father even said Paul agreed 100% with his mission and knew the risks. If the soldiers believe they're doing the right thing, why must we have a debate that'll lead to nothing?

2. You can contact your Liberal MP and beg him to push for a debate, but let me tell you this Five, he won't care. Even if he does want a debate, it isn't his call. Ever hear of a Party Whip? They ensure that only the party's interests are discussed. A debate will happen if the leader of the Liberals (a position which doesn't exist right now) wants one. You can contact Mr. Dhaliwal, he'll pour honey in your ear, you'll probably cry again, and he'll hang up. Then he'll go home, beat his wife, and cheat on his taxes, forgetting you ever called. I'm sorry to say Five, but you live in a bubble my friend. Our politcal system does not cater to the people, it caters to itself. The sooner you realize this the better off you'll be.

3. Sassy was right. The best person to answer your concerns would be the CDS. The only people in the House of Commons that really know what's going on in Afghanistan are the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Minister of National Defence. The rest are clueless, and most likely in the same boat as you. If you want answers and want them answered by someone with the credentials to answer them properly, contact the CDS' office.

4. Blogs from overseas are a waste of time. I've been in theatre and i'll tell you this; the only people able to get on a computer on a regular basis to post blogs are REMF (Rear Echelon Mother Fuckers) and Officers. When I was in 'ghan I was limited to 10 minutes, once a week, on the net. I used that time to send off an email to my girlfriend, parents, and friends. Any blog you read from Afghanistan will probably be by an RMS Clerk that sits at a computer all day, or some staff officer that never leaves the camp. The infanteers, tankers, gunners, and sappers rarely get on the computer because they're out eating dust, patrolling Kandahar. The signallers, medics, mechanics, supply techs, and military police are all out on patrols support the combat arms boys and keeping the camp running. In short, I put no stock in blogs.

 

[Curiosity]

Mogs

Sorry I have to disagree regarding the blogs - there are milblogs operated by independent journalists such as Michael Yon who runs a very unbiased and often (too true) picture of the events and almost daily are blogs from the grunts on up to their superiors - as well as unlimited e-mails and phone calls to family at home.

We all went with Thunder6 from being a weekend national guardsman (paying for his university work), who was newly married, recruited for active duty as he was about to receive his Ph.D., sent to Iraq and had two weeks' relief over an eighteen month post.

His pictures and his story weren't all about war - but about a man being hastily promoted because as a psychology major he was able to help so many of his brothers and sisters, and finally was promoted to Captain, and finally was sent home.

His writing is excellent - he can paint a portrait of a day in Iraq like no other writer and the majority of my exchanges via e-mail with him were to encourage him to expand on his blog writing and publish a book for all of us to read. He doesn't just write about war, but about what happens to a soldier's head when things happen at a second's notice.... and then the picking up after the moment, trying to reassert your head into reality once again.

His unit had death, and unremitting heat, but he found a flower in the desert with the children who befriended the military, thus bringing humanity to the monstrosity of living in a war zone.

http://thunder6.typepad.com/365_arabian_nights/

Danjel (thunder6) has come home now and his blog sits empty...a mute testament to his time spent there. The pictures say much more than the man himself.

Danjel Boot himself is a typical American guy. His dad is Indonesian/Dutch, escaping that part of the world to arrive in the Netherlands where he found no work, and discrimination. He then ventured to the U.S. and has raised a beautiful family of mixed race children who are all enjoying their pursuit of higher education and contribution to their communities.

Waste of time? Hardly. We cannot count on the MSM to deliver anything but gore and hysteria. I would rather read it from the guys with their feet in the sand thank you. There are hundreds just like Danjel and the collection of these blogs give understanding to those at home, and peace to the loved ones.

It is too bad Canada wish to treat their military like kids at camp when it comes to down time communication freedoms.
That's old school military based on British heirarchy and there isn't any primogeniture in the military - except trying to stay alive.
Medals? They are for after.

 

[Mogz]

RE: Concerns, the Armed F

I was refering to Canadian blogs Wednesday. I have no doubt that there are some good blogs out there, however based on both my time in Afghanistan and the blogs i've read, I put little faith in them. To reiterate, my views are based on Canadian blogs, and I have never read an American blog out of Iraq.

With that said, thanks for the link, i'll give it a read.

I would like to point out that the time constaints on the internet in Afghanistan are not based on some rule set up by the commanders. In Bosnia we were given unlimited time on the net, however due to both the sensitive nature of our work in Afghanistan and the technical limitations that both Kabul and Kandahar presented the signallers, that freedom is not available in 'ghan. Also please keep in mind that it's been roughly a year since I left Afghanistan and the situation could have changed. Maybe a good Canadian blog will come out of Afghanistan. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Curiosity]

Mogz

Thank you for taking my screeching post to you so well. I am sorry I didn't understand your position.

I feel protective of Thunder6 and some of his other bloggers because they took time to keep the people at home updated with their impressions and opinions - and we were able to read incidents which would never make it into the MSM, because they didn't involved enough "jazz".... just day to day things.... like 0% alcohol green beer on St. Patrick's Day last year....that kind of thing...

I was drawn to Thunder because he is a writer - a wonderful writer who can transport you to a small room listening to his words rather than reading them on a screen.

I apologize for my bias when I know nothing about the rules of Afghanistan engagement for Canadian military.

 

[FiveParadox]

Response to Mogz

Mogz, contrary to the naïve and unknowledgeable picture you are trying to paint of me, I am not ignorant. I am aware of the reasoning behind the deployment of the Canadian Armed Forces to Afghanistan. However, that decision was made six years ago; there is no reason to say that we should not have the right to re-evaluate a mission-in-progress. I am not suggesting that we withdraw the Armed Forces from Afghanistan — as I have said, a take-note or emergency debate would not have the authority to receive any such motions.

And on your token of logic behind forbidding a supporter of the Liberal Party of Canada from discussing previous decisions thereof, you must, with all due respect, be mad. To imply that a supporter of a party must blindly support every decision made by that party, or to never think about the decisions that such a party is making, even when in Government, is entirely absurd. I'm not stupid, and I'm not going to support something exclusively because it was set into motion by the Grits.

That being said, I support the mission in Afghanistan; however, I want to see fresh ideas and new suggestions, and alternatives wherever possible. In my opinion, General Rick Hillier, the Chief of the Defence Staff, does not have the authority to make political decisions. The Government of Canada and, perhaps just as importantly the House of Commons and the Senate, must continue to be key players in this affair.

On another note, the Liberal Party of Canada does, in fact, continue to have a leader. If you had read into any documentation on the matter in the least, then you would be quite aware that the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada is and continues to be the Right Honourable Paul Martin, P.C., M.P., the Member for LaSalle—Émard; the Leader of the Opposition (in the House of Commons) is the Honourable Bill Graham, P.C., M.P., the Member for Toronto Centre.

Furthermore, I would be irresponsible as a citizen of Newton—North Delta to neglect to inform my Member of Parliament, from time to time, of my opinion on certain issues. I know quite well that his actions are dictated, more-or-less, by the Chief Opposition Whip. However, I would be remiss in my responsibilities as an actively-involved citizen of Canada to ignore the democratic process.

As for decision-making by Gen. Rick Hillier, I have watched interviews with the Chief of the Defence Staff on CPAC, and when asked about the future of the mission, he almost always defers the reporter to Parliament, citing that decision-making is the business of politicians, and action is the business of the Canadian Armed Forces.

And on a technicality, we don't have a Deputy Prime Minister with the current Government.

And I like my bubble! lol

 

[Mogz]

Wednesday,

I have no problem with a post intended to correct or inform. No offense was taken. Thank you again for sharing the link with me. I've been reading some of it when I get some free time.

Five....Five,

Mogz, contrary to the naïve and unknowledgeable picture you are trying to paint of me, I am not ignorant. I am aware of the reasoning behind the deployment of the Canadian Armed Forces to Afghanistan. However, that decision was made six years ago; there is no reason to say that we should not have the right to re-evaluate a mission-in-progress. I am not suggesting that we withdraw the Armed Forces from Afghanistan — as I have said, a take-note or emergency debate would not have the authority to receive any such motions.

The situation hasn't changed. The debate in 2001 layed out the situation that still exists. Why do we need to rehash the exact same thing we discussed years ago. I could see if perhaps the situation in 'ghan had changed, however it hasn't. We're at war, and we're working to help the people of Afghanistan. Lastly what good does a take note debate do except undermine the efforts of the men and women on the ground. If you've read the email I posted from a friend in Kandahar, you'd know what sort of effect this whole situation has on the troops in Country. In short, a debate is a negative thing, something that doesn't need to be done just for the sake of doing it.

And on your token of logic behind forbidding a supporter of the Liberal Party of Canada from discussing previous decisions thereof, you must, with all due respect, be mad. To imply that a supporter of a party must blindly support every decision made by that party, or to never think about the decisions that such a party is making, even when in Government, is entirely absurd. I'm not stupid, and I'm not going to support something exclusively because it was set into motion by the Grits.

I assure you I am not mad, annoyed with having to reiterate the same stuff over and over yes, but not mad. Think what you want about politics, but the party whip ensures that the party stays in line with the party leader. Every motion that is brought up in Parliment, every outburst, debate, is controlled by the party leader through the party whip. An MP can not just stand up and say "hi, i'm pro-homo marriage". He has to clear that through the party whip. Call your MP all you want, but he won't care as i've said. I don't believe you're a totally ignorant person, however when it comes to Government and the World you are a tad. You can throw around catch phrases like "take note debate", preface every name with their honorific title, and quote from the charter of rights and freedoms, but that doesn't mean you understand anything. Your view that an MP really cares about what you think, or that each MP works for his own agenda in the House of Commons is a fallacy. I'm sorry, but the truth hurts my friend.

In my opinion, General Rick Hillier, the Chief of the Defence Staff, does not have the authority to make political decisions.

You're right, hence why he doesn't. He makes military decisions, and he doesn a damned good job of it. He doesn't beat around the bush and tells it like it is. If you, our some MP doesn't like it, deal with it.

On another note, the Liberal Party of Canada does, in fact, continue to have a leader. If you had read into any documentation on the matter in the least, then you would be quite aware that the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada is and continues to be the Right Honourable Paul Martin, P.C., M.P., the Member for LaSalle—Émard; the Leader of the Opposition (in the House of Commons) is the Honourable Bill Graham, P.C., M.P., the Member for Toronto Centre.

Thanks tips, I know that. I was making a dramatic point.

Furthermore, I would be irresponsible as a citizen of Newton—North Delta to neglect to inform my Member of Parliament, from time to time, of my opinion on certain issues. I know quite well that his actions are dictated, more-or-less, by the Chief Opposition Whip. However, I would be remiss in my responsibilities as an actively-involved citizen of Canada to ignore the democratic process.

Eeesh, how flamboyant. You honeslty think your opinion matters? At all? All your local MP cares about is your vote, so he can get his paycheck and sit in the House of Commons. As I said, call your man, tell him your thoughts. He'll hang up, and forgot all about you. If you feel the need to talk to someone about this issue, go nuts, whatever helps you sleep at night man.

As for decision-making by Gen. Rick Hillier, I have watched interviews with the Chief of the Defence Staff on CPAC, and when asked about the future of the mission, he almost always defers the reporter to Parliament, citing that decision-making is the business of politicians, and action is the business of the Canadian Armed Forces.

The future is the decision of the Government. As I said before:

Government = Owner
Military = Dog

 

[Sassylassie]

Scot Taylor's article today summed it up beautifully. Once we start having deaths the "Bring our Boys home brigade" start complaining. There are just as many deaths on bases in Canada due to accidents. Where is the public outcry? Our government denies that "Golf War" syndrome is real, well it is--read the obits. Does Joe public care that men and women now ex-military are dying a horrible death with no pensions because our Government says this Syndrome doesn't exist. Now there is a topic that needs to be discuss in Parliment.

 

[Mogz]

RE: Concerns, the Armed F

Scot Taylor's article today summed it up beautifully. Once we start having deaths the "Bring our Boys home brigade" start complaining. There are just as many deaths on bases in Canada due to accidents. Where is the public outcry? Our government denies that "Golf War" syndrome is real, well it is--read the obits. Does Joe public care that men and women now ex-military are dying a horrible death with no pensions because our Government says this Syndrome doesn't exist. Now there is a topic that needs to be discuss in Parliment.

A better point to bring up would be the fact that dozens of Canadian soldiers were killed in the 90's and no one gave a damn. MCpl Mark "Izzy" Isfeld was killed in Croatia in 1994 trying to save children from a mine field, it never even made the paper. This is a list of Canadian soldiers killed while serving on a PEACEKEEPING mission in the Former Yugoslavia 1992-1995:

Sgt Cornelius M. RALPH, CD
22 Field Engineer Squadron
Killed in Action 17 Aug 1992

MCpl John W. TERNAPOLSKI
2 Bn, Royal Canadian Regiment
Killed in Action 25 Mar 1993

Cpl Daniel GUNTHER
2nd Bn, Royal 22e Regiment
Killed in Action 18 June 1993


Cpl Jean-Marc H. BECHARD
2nd Bn, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
Died of combat related wounds 6 Aug 1993

Sgt J. Denis A. GAREAU, CD
Logistics Branch 2 RCR
Killed in mine strike 17 Aug 1993

Capt James P. DeCOSTE, CD
2 Bn, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
Killed in Action 18 Sep 1993

MCpl Stephane L.P. LANGEVIN
12e Regiment Blinde du Canada
Killed when his Cougar rolled over 29 Nov 1993

Cpl David GALVIN
Sherbrooke Hussars
Killed in Action 29 Nov 1993

Pte Kirk D. COOPER
3rd Bn, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
Killed after being hit by vehicle 6 June 1994

MCpl Mark R. ISFELD
1 Combat Engineer Regiment
Killed in mine strike 21 June 1994

Cpl Joseph F.Y. ROUSSEAU
12e Regiment Blinde du Canada
Killed in Action 25 Sep 1995

The following is a list of Canadian soldiers killed while serving in The Former Yugoslavia on a NATO mission from 1997-2004:

Bdr Robert D. VIALETTE
1st Regt, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery
Killed by a UXB 21 July 1997

MCpl Terrence S. McCREA , CD
Logistics Branch 1 RCR
Killed in mine strike 25 Mar 1998

Cpl James OGILVIE
Royal Canadian Dragoons
Killed when his Cougar flipped 30 Aug 1998

Spr Gilles DESMARAIS
2 Combat Engineer Regiment
Killed in mine strike 25 Sep 1998

Sgt V JOUBERET
1 Bn Royal 22e Regiment
Killed in Action 13 Dec 1999

Cpl Jamie D. VERMEULEN
2nd Bn Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
Killed in Accident 06 Jul 2003

Cpl Andrew David JOHNSON
1st Bn Royal Canadian Regiment (att RCD)
Killed in mine strike 29 Jan 2004

Who here as ever heard of these men in the news? I'd bet no one.

 

[Hill]

Hello ladies and Gents
I was browsing the web and came cross your posts on Canadian troops in deployment areas overseas and the debate that seems to be a controversy in our political arena. I served with the Canadian military for 14 years. I have been deployed several times in my career to war zones and dangerous areas. I have lost friends there and I can tell you that no one can speak for us in the House of Commons unless it’s telling them to leave us a lone and let us do what we are paid to do. “Fight.” We are trained to prevent foreign powers from taking our liberty and freedom away. When some one in our government says that they can speak for us, I would rather see some one who picked up a rifle and defended our constitution then some one who has never experience a bullet flying past their heads. I loved my job and I lost good friends doing it, some of them you have listed below in this blog. Don’t fool your self’s. Our troops love being deployed that’s what they joined for. There is not a soldier out there that would want to sit in camp some were in Canada rather then out there getting there hands dirty and saving a life or two. Canadian troops are one of the best trained in the world. We are also one of the best paid in the world. I have gone against many military units from all countries in training operations and we blew them out of the water except American Rangers and the British army who gave us the run for our money. The friends of mine who died over seas deserve the respect for witch they died. There is no politician out there who can speak for us except one who knows what its like to see a friend or two die in battle and has the blood of there efforts on his face. I don’t mean to be grouse I want to make a point. Our troops love doing what they know best. With out us this country is nothing. I take my hat off to every one who died for me and I shed tears for those that saved my way of life.
Don’t stop us from defending other innocent human beings from dieing. We in Canada are spoiled. We have been raised in a safe guarded country free of wars and starvation and for the most part obsolete diseases. We know noting of what its like to see innocent people murdered or his wife and children raped and pillaged because of ethnic cleansing. The only thing a soldier would love to see more then anything is 2 politicians in a boxing ring bare fisting it to the death to settle the matter rather then sending some one else to do there bidding for them. So if that’s not going to happen leave us alone and let us defend our way of life. Who knows, if Canada did not fight in ww2 we could have been under a swastika, Thank “you very much” Terrorists deserve to die. They kill every one with out remorse and they have no morals other then a religion who told them they would get 72 virgins in heaven if they take an infidels life. How much more perverse is that over some one standing in the way of a bullet to save a child. I would in a flash! We soldiers are very simple minded people. We go and do what we are told to do, But please don’t underestimate us, we are not stupid. We don’t need to be lead around like children with others making our decisions for us. We wouldn’t be there if we did not want to be. “We don’t have the draft” We are not Americans!! I chose to fight and kill or be killed that’s what my job was. That’s why your children can choose between steak or pork at meal time. Those children I defended didn’t have that luxury. I am proud and want politicians to find ways to get us involved not rob us of our Canadian spirit that the Dutch recognized and praised us for after World War 2. If it were not for Canadians a lot more people would have died or lost their freedom. I hope this shed some light.

CPL HILL
PPCLI

 

[tay]

Wounded vets asked to sign form saying they won’t criticize the military on social media



The Canadian Forces is requiring physically and mentally wounded soldiers to sign a form acknowledging they won’t criticize senior officers or discourage others in uniform with their comments on social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter.
The form, given to military personnel who are transferred to the Joint Personnel Support Unit, was sent to the Citizen by military members upset with what they see as a threat to their right to speak out about the failure of the Department of National Defence and Canadian Forces to take care of the wounded.

The Joint Personnel Support Unit, or JPSU, was created to help the wounded and it oversees support centres across the country. But in August the Citizen revealed that the organization is rife with problems, with soldiers and staff speaking out about the lack of resources and concerns that some of the support centres are dysfunctional.

Some of the wounded and their families have also spoken out publicly about the failure of the military and government leadership to help those injured in the service of their country. In addition, veterans are becoming more vocal in on-line chat rooms about their treatment.

In an email to the Citizen, the JPSU denied that the creation of the policy and document was designed to stifle criticism of politicians and senior military staff. It was created “in an effort to educate our members and personnel on what constitutes the appropriate and inappropriate use of social media and the possible ramifications for a CAF member,” the email added.

The JPSU “policy on proper comments on social media” repeats well-known military directions not to post secret information on websites and other forums. It also tells military personnel not to make disparaging comments about senior officers or fellow personnel.
But military personnel in JPSU are also told not to “write anything that might discourage others or make them dissatisfied with their conditions or their employment.”

In addition, those in JPSU were told not to disclose “your views on any military subject.”

The form, introduced in March, notes military personnel in JPSU will be held responsible for not only the content they post on social media outlets but also the content of their friends which they have “tagged” on various sites.


more


Wounded vets asked to sign form saying they won’t criticize the military on social media

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I'm confused. Are these veterans, or are they soldiers?

From the story, it looks like they're soldiers, who can be ordered to shut up.

Veterans is a different matter.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Retired air force officer Sean Bruyea said the Canadian Forces is right to have a policy on how its personnel should behave on social media forums, but thinks the JPSU initiative goes far beyond what is normal.

“This is right out of something you would see during the Soviet era,” said Bruyea, who deals with post-traumatic stress issues and is a high-profile critic of how the military and government treats wounded veterans. “This is way over the top.”

Bruyea said wounded personnel use social media not only to communicate with each other but to raise issues that affect them. “The public deserves to know how these people are being mistreated and about the failure of the senior leadership to take care of them,” he explained. “This is just an attempt to shut them up.”

This seems to be following the kind of policy that the conservative government has been so pleased with of plugging all possible negative information gaps before anything embarrassing gets out.

We're supposed to be living in a free and open state and while there has to be certain limitations on the rights of Forces personnel to protect operational security, this shouldn't extend to the personal. This is going to far.