I was thinking, one common issue that comes up when we're discussing war against a tyranous regime is how to fight the government without harming the people, or at least causing the minimum harm to the people. Another issue is how to make it clear to the people that the war is in fact against their government and not them.
In fact, politically, this debate alone can determine the success of a war. For instance, US politicans were somewhat hesitant about going all out in the war in Afghanistan and always held back to some degree in recognition of the fact that an all out war, while possibly ensuring military victory against the Vietcong, could have also turned the US population and other countries against the US. After all, how does an army fight a war effectively if an eleciton puts a new government into office that calls them back home?
Looking at it that way, at least in a democratic country, maintaining support for the war among voters is in fact a part of military strategy.
And this gave me an idea.
Let's suppose that Canada guaranteed all refugees asylum on Canadian soil on the condition that they join one of Canda's foreign legions. Essentially I could see four such legions forming:
The English-Canadian Marine Corps Foreign Legion
An amphibious assault force all of whose members would be required to learn English initially.
The French-Canadian Marine Corps Foreign Legion
Same concept but for French-Canada
The English-Canadian Peace Corps Foreign Legion and the French-Canadian Peace Corps Foreign Legion
Same concepts as above, but involved in medical care, education, development, etc.
Of course refugees suffering from illness and certain others may be exempted. But otherwise, while they'd all be free to choose between the four, they would be required to choose one of them.
This could serve a number of objectives:
1. Provide Canada with a specialized amphibious force of its own, just like the Royal Marine Corps.
2. Ensure refugees integrate. After all, if they're applyin for refugee status, we must assume they don't pass muster to apply for the regular immigration process.
3. Ensure that in future military endeavours abroad, Canada's military would in fact have the necessary skills at its disposal to fight the war more efficiently. After all, seeing that the countries we're most likely to fight are the ones refugees are coming from, it really does go hand in hand. These foreign lefions would certainly have members who can speak the local language. Since they'd be fully trained in English of French, they'd be able to serve as reasonbly competent interpretors for the most part. THey'd also have a deeper understanding of the local culture so as to engage in a more effective hearts and minds campaign and so avoid the stigma of Canadian troops as foreign invaders.
4. In the event of war and occupation of a foreign country, the troops would be on hand ot teach the local army. After all, some of these Canadian troops might want to go back to their countries once the old regime is torn down. We could certainly allow them to transfer to the new national army of their country if they wish to stay behind when we leave. This would mean some of these refugees would go back home eventually and help rebuild their national defense for the future.
5. Seeing that these troops woudl certainly be sensetive to indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas, and would tend to be very cautious on that front, it could also win more support for the war from those citizens who are concerned about Canadian soldiers abusing locals for example.
I'm sure there could be other benefits, but if we consider certain countries to be tyranous, then if we are sincere in that belief, certainly we'd welcome their refugees in our army, woudl we not?
Any thoughts on this?
In fact, politically, this debate alone can determine the success of a war. For instance, US politicans were somewhat hesitant about going all out in the war in Afghanistan and always held back to some degree in recognition of the fact that an all out war, while possibly ensuring military victory against the Vietcong, could have also turned the US population and other countries against the US. After all, how does an army fight a war effectively if an eleciton puts a new government into office that calls them back home?
Looking at it that way, at least in a democratic country, maintaining support for the war among voters is in fact a part of military strategy.
And this gave me an idea.
Let's suppose that Canada guaranteed all refugees asylum on Canadian soil on the condition that they join one of Canda's foreign legions. Essentially I could see four such legions forming:
The English-Canadian Marine Corps Foreign Legion
An amphibious assault force all of whose members would be required to learn English initially.
The French-Canadian Marine Corps Foreign Legion
Same concept but for French-Canada
The English-Canadian Peace Corps Foreign Legion and the French-Canadian Peace Corps Foreign Legion
Same concepts as above, but involved in medical care, education, development, etc.
Of course refugees suffering from illness and certain others may be exempted. But otherwise, while they'd all be free to choose between the four, they would be required to choose one of them.
This could serve a number of objectives:
1. Provide Canada with a specialized amphibious force of its own, just like the Royal Marine Corps.
2. Ensure refugees integrate. After all, if they're applyin for refugee status, we must assume they don't pass muster to apply for the regular immigration process.
3. Ensure that in future military endeavours abroad, Canada's military would in fact have the necessary skills at its disposal to fight the war more efficiently. After all, seeing that the countries we're most likely to fight are the ones refugees are coming from, it really does go hand in hand. These foreign lefions would certainly have members who can speak the local language. Since they'd be fully trained in English of French, they'd be able to serve as reasonbly competent interpretors for the most part. THey'd also have a deeper understanding of the local culture so as to engage in a more effective hearts and minds campaign and so avoid the stigma of Canadian troops as foreign invaders.
4. In the event of war and occupation of a foreign country, the troops would be on hand ot teach the local army. After all, some of these Canadian troops might want to go back to their countries once the old regime is torn down. We could certainly allow them to transfer to the new national army of their country if they wish to stay behind when we leave. This would mean some of these refugees would go back home eventually and help rebuild their national defense for the future.
5. Seeing that these troops woudl certainly be sensetive to indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas, and would tend to be very cautious on that front, it could also win more support for the war from those citizens who are concerned about Canadian soldiers abusing locals for example.
I'm sure there could be other benefits, but if we consider certain countries to be tyranous, then if we are sincere in that belief, certainly we'd welcome their refugees in our army, woudl we not?
Any thoughts on this?
