Ought Canada to automatize the military?


View Poll Results: Ought the Canadian military become automatized in accordance with the provisions of the second post
Yes. 2 40.00%
Other option. 3 60.00%
Voters: 5. You may not vote on this poll

Machjo
#1
If a police officer witnesses a crime, he needs not contact parliament to have a vote on whether or not to arrest the person. He need not worry about whether or not the criminal in question is a friend of the prime minister's or not. Everything is automated. Laws are passed which clearly define the protocol the officer is to follow upon seeing a crime in progress. If the circumstances, according to law, are met, then he reacts accordingly, automatically, without the government even bering aware it's happening. Such as system also proves to be not only efficient, but also just since this puts the government itself under the laws of these protocols, thus not allowing anyone to claim so often that arrests are too suspiciously selective.

With the military, it's a whole different ballgame! It is not automatized at all, with each decision having to come from the Canadian government, one exception being in the event of immediate military threat from a proceeding attack againsta Canadian soil or the body politic.

But as far as international intervention is concerned, it's all dependant upon the government's whims and fancies on a case by case basis, depending on the prejudices and relationships and interests of the government in quesiton. A good example is the US. Many ask why does the US military attack naiton X, but not naiton Z, based on the reasons given for attacking nation X when Z falls under the same category. This merely makes the military appear like a biassed tool of partisan politics rather than an forece which is designed to do its job professionally, apolitically and without partisan bias.

Thus I shall make a recommendation for my second post in this thread.
 
Machjo
#2
1.The Canadian government must maintain, either independently or collectively, a force of 100,000 well trained and equipped men, within the provisions of international law.
2.This force will destroy, within the provisions of international law, any government which violates any international law.
 
Machjo
#3
I believe the advantages of the provisions above would be the following:

1. From the standpoint of efficiency and effectiveness, the requirement of ensuring 100,000 men ensures the force is capable of performing its job while at teh same time not being so gib as to be perceived as a serious threat to other nations.

2. from an economic standpoint, should such a force be too expesive for the Canadian government to finance independently, this would allow the Canadian government to share such a force with otehr naitons. Some Commonwealth nations could possibly be interested in this as well, as might be some naitons of the Fraoncophonie.

3. The provision that these new rules must be carried out within the bounds of internaitonal law would still keep a tight chain on the military, thus preventing it from going wild! It could only carry out these rules should such actions not violate any internatinal law. Should it do so, then international law would override these rules and thus the military would have no rith to attack whatever government.

4. The fact taht these rules are automatic would thus depoliticize the military. Effectively, in theory, it could even destroy its own government should the legal provisions be in place. It would also mean that the military can['t choose its battle according to personal interests. Totally apolitical, totally just and equal,looking out for international law and that is it.

5. Efficient. In the event that all provisions are in place, no deed to waste time requesting permisison fromt the government. i.e.
a)nation X violates internaitonal law.
b) All internaitonal laws at that moment permit this force to ataack.
c) the force attacks.
d) the prime minister reads about it in the newspaper the next day. Just as would be the case with a police officer.

What are your thoughts on the automatization of teh military? I think it would be a good way to depoliticize it certainly.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#4
While I admire the principles you are attempting to put forth, Machjo , other than the effort to increase the amount of men and women in the Canadian Forces , I must disagree. I don't think that it would be a wise idea to enable the Forces to act without the authorization of the Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada (not Her Excellency herself, of course, but I mean the Parliament of Canada ). I think that it is important that the Government of Canada , and the people, have the right to decide when the Forces should, and shouldn't, be deployed.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#5
Lunacy, pure and simple.

I pay taxes to support a military that defends NATIONAL interests as defined by the people of Canada......FULL STOP.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#6
I think it's a good idea 100,000 killers on a hair trigger ready at a moments notice to pounce on evildoers, I wonder who weed have to attack first, of course it would have to be according to international law, this is brilliant work Macho I'm sure it would satisfy the bloodlust of our military inthusiasts. A perfect unpolitical responce team.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#7
I think it's a good idea 100,000 killers on a hair trigger ready at a moments notice to pounce on evildoers, I wonder who weed have to attack first, of course it would have to be according to international law, this is brilliant work Machjo I'm sure it would satisfy the bloodlust of our military inthusiasts. A perfect unpolitical responce team.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#8
As an ex military member I would say that having a military that is untouchable by it's political masters is not a good thing. (Even when the political master is a chowder head like former PM Jean Chretien) Sorry guys, couldn't resist, the man was a disaster for the military and our comittments to not only NATO, but the UN and civil defense and relief.

Okay back on track. Lack of control on the military would set a dangerous precendent. Discipline is a must for the military to carry out it's job and contrary to polpular believe soldiers are not rabid dogs or as put by CORTEZ
Quote:

excerpt from Jarhead post: the military is a homoerotic institution
composed of beta-that is-second rate-- males
who spend losts of time wanking off waiting to kill someone

In fact soldiers are ordinary people who are governed by a code of conduct (discipline and honour), but that conduct is enforced by a chain of command which hinges on mutual respect and integrity.

Respecting ones superior is paramount to maintaining discipline and good order within the ranks. A good comparison would be taking a1000 civilians and continually doing things to agitate them, making them cold uncomfortable, calling them names. Eventually this is going to result in a riot or a Mob.

When you introduce a structure which use key figures in positions of authority and couple that with the many things I mentioned above: integrity, discipline, leadership, etc... You are left with a group of individuals who stand as one, endure hardships and respect leadership.
I'm condensing here because I've got to get the heck to bed, but these things are all important factors in maintaining good order and discipline.

Take away Leadership, you remove accountability. Remove accountability, you affect discipline. Once discipline is gone you no longer have a military that answers to anyone.

They are not dogs which must be muzzled, but the military is an institution which requires Leadership from the Prime Minister down.

In fact I need only to point to places like Afghanistan, Africa or the FY where lack of leadership and blatant disregard of discipline has lead to scores of war crimes. These are just to name a few.
Off to bed then work
Cheers
M
 
Finder
#9
No the Canadian Armed Forces do not rule Canada, I've never ever heard of an Automatized military besides in nations which do not fully control their militaries. Many African counties have a hard time controling there armed forces and revolutionary armies which do not appear to always listen to the command structure and often then control government policy. Compairing the civil police force which has guide lines to act to that of the military is somewhat scewed in the first place, it just can't be done. They are two different services.
 
Machjo
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy

Lunacy, pure and simple.

I pay taxes to support a military that defends NATIONAL interests as defined by the people of Canada......FULL STOP.

Then what if the forces were automatized according to clearly defined naitonal interests? This would mean that unless those clearly defined interests are not forthcoming, the government has no right to declare war. This would ensure, however, that the definition of Canadian interests doesn't change on a bribe, for instance.
 
Machjo
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

I think it's a good idea 100,000 killers on a hair trigger ready at a moments notice to pounce on evildoers, I wonder who weed have to attack first, of course it would have to be according to international law, this is brilliant work Macho I'm sure it would satisfy the bloodlust of our military inthusiasts. A perfect unpolitical responce team.

First off, what says the number of soldiers would necessarily have to increase overall? Certainly if Canada dicides to go it independantly, then certainly 100,000 soldiers would be quite an increase. but if Canada should, let's say, pool its resources with other naitons, the combined force of 100,000 could potentially mean having to REDUCE overall military personnel. So this could really go both ways, depending on the strategy chosen (go alone, or share a force with a few naitons).

And as for "killers on a hair trigger", if we should consider that internaitonal laws restricting military intervention abound, engagement would be rare indeed. Not to mention that the UN itself would probably react to such a force by redefining certain international laws. So it really wouln't see combat as often as one might think. But when it does, by definition"destroy a government" would mean going all out. but then again, it would have no mandate to occupy.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#12
Machjo , your proposed reforms do not, I would suggest, account for exigent circumstances. If the United States of America was found to act in contravention of international law, and the Canadian Forces were required to attempt to "destroy" foreign governments who breach international law, then the Forces would attack the United States without the authorization of the Government of Canada .

Canada would subsequently be destroyed.
 
Machjo
#13
Okay back on track. Lack of control on the military would set a dangerous precendent. Discipline is a must for the military to carry out it's job and contrary to polpular believe soldiers are not rabid dogs or as put byIn fact soldiers are ordinary people who are governed by a code of conduct (discipline and honour), but that conduct is enforced by a chain of command which hinges on mutual respect and integrity.

I don't see how replacing government authority with the authority of a new law defining new rules of engagement would affect discipline. What's the difference between obeying the government and obeying a new law passed by the government? Either way, there would still be rules and protocol to follow.

Respecting ones superior is paramount to maintaining discipline and good order within the ranks. A good comparison would be taking a1000 civilians and continually doing things to agitate them, making them cold uncomfortable, calling them names. Eventually this is going to result in a riot or a Mob.

Of course the superior is still the governmen, just as is the case for police officers. At the end of the day, police officers must still abide by the laws as set by the government, no?

When you introduce a structure which use key figures in positions of authority and couple that with the many things I mentioned above: integrity, discipline, leadership, etc... You are left with a group of individuals who stand as one, endure hardships and respect leadership.

I don't quite get what you're saying here. Sorry.


Take away Leadership, you remove accountability. Remove accountability, you affect discipline. Once discipline is gone you no longer have a military that answers to anyone.

There would still be leardership. Just like with a police officer, the government might not be standing there behind him, or sitting in the cop car with him, but the spirit of the laws passed by the government must still be obeyed. the leadership is thus still there in spirit. Same would apply to the military. The laws passsed defining the rules of engagement would mean that the military could not just go gung ho 'cause they're bored and want to test out their new toys in some far flung country. There would still be protocol to follow.

They are not dogs which must be muzzled, but the military is an institution which requires Leadership from the Prime Minister down.

Sure it does. But even then the PM himself would be bound by the rules of such a new law, thus depoliticizing the military.

In fact I need only to point to places like Afghanistan, Africa or the FY where lack of leadership and blatant disregard of discipline has lead to scores of war crimes. These are just to name a few.
Off to bed then work
Cheers
M


Of course rules must be followed, and when violations occur, punishment is metteed out. But how does this change if the troops are sent by the PM or by protocol? Eitehr way, rules of conduct apply. the difference is that, if the military has to abide by internaitonal laws, it's not likely to see much conflict anyway, and when it does, then it must be serious (the UN is relatively pacifist after all). Add to that that since war would have to be declared independantly of, let's way, whether or not the naiotn has oil, this would also raise the trust and respect for such an apolitical force.
 
Machjo
#14
Okay back on track. Lack of control on the military would set a dangerous precendent. Discipline is a must for the military to carry out it's job and contrary to polpular believe soldiers are not rabid dogs or as put byIn fact soldiers are ordinary people who are governed by a code of conduct (discipline and honour), but that conduct is enforced by a chain of command which hinges on mutual respect and integrity.

I don't see how replacing government authority with the authority of a new law defining new rules of engagement would affect discipline. What's the difference between obeying the government and obeying a new law passed by the government? Either way, there would still be rules and protocol to follow.

Respecting ones superior is paramount to maintaining discipline and good order within the ranks. A good comparison would be taking a1000 civilians and continually doing things to agitate them, making them cold uncomfortable, calling them names. Eventually this is going to result in a riot or a Mob.

Of course the superior is still the governmen, just as is the case for police officers. At the end of the day, police officers must still abide by the laws as set by the government, no?

When you introduce a structure which use key figures in positions of authority and couple that with the many things I mentioned above: integrity, discipline, leadership, etc... You are left with a group of individuals who stand as one, endure hardships and respect leadership.

I don't quite get what you're saying here. Sorry.


Take away Leadership, you remove accountability. Remove accountability, you affect discipline. Once discipline is gone you no longer have a military that answers to anyone.

There would still be leardership. Just like with a police officer, the government might not be standing there behind him, or sitting in the cop car with him, but the spirit of the laws passed by the government must still be obeyed. the leadership is thus still there in spirit. Same would apply to the military. The laws passsed defining the rules of engagement would mean that the military could not just go gung ho 'cause they're bored and want to test out their new toys in some far flung country. There would still be protocol to follow.

They are not dogs which must be muzzled, but the military is an institution which requires Leadership from the Prime Minister down.

Sure it does. But even then the PM himself would be bound by the rules of such a new law, thus depoliticizing the military.

In fact I need only to point to places like Afghanistan, Africa or the FY where lack of leadership and blatant disregard of discipline has lead to scores of war crimes. These are just to name a few.
Off to bed then work
Cheers
M


Of course rules must be followed, and when violations occur, punishment is metteed out. But how does this change if the troops are sent by the PM or by protocol? Eitehr way, rules of conduct apply. the difference is that, if the military has to abide by internaitonal laws, it's not likely to see much conflict anyway, and when it does, then it must be serious (the UN is relatively pacifist after all). Add to that that since war would have to be declared independantly of, let's way, whether or not the naiotn has oil, this would also raise the trust and respect for such an apolitical force.
 
Machjo
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by FiveParadox

Machjo , your proposed reforms do not, I would suggest, account for exigent circumstances. If the United States of America was found to act in contravention of international law, and the Canadian Forces were required to attempt to "destroy" foreign governments who breach international law, then the Forces would attack the United States without the authorization of the Government of Canada .

Canada would subsequently be destroyed.

Nah! Here's what would really happen:

The PM, upon finding out from the local morning paper that Canadian troops just stormed Washington DC earlier in the morning, would, in a panic, contact the White House immediately:

"Sorry, Mr. Prez. I never expected that your just nation would ever have violated international law. I'm on the way to the House of Commons right now to try to modify the Bill so as to get the troops out ASAP. Please, Mr. Prez, just be patient for one day, alright. Oh, by the way, since they are legislated to destroy the government, and you're the government, might I suggest you take cover for the next 24 hours while we try to fix a minor legislative glitch. It might take awhile for the anti-American side of the house to approve of such legislative modifications, and then to get our allies to approve likewise."

And the prez would say:

"No worries, Mr. PM; We've cleared them all out already! All 100,000 of them."

There you go, Five. No harm done.
 
FiveParadox
Liberal
#16
Uh-huh or the House of Commons would be a smoldering crater.

Seriously though, Machjo , I think that this idea would seriously compromise the ability of the Canadian Forces to account for particular situations based on instructions from the Government of Canada . I think it is important that the Government and its administrators have the authority needed to control the Forces.
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#17
There is a hell of a difference between a cop arresting someone and our country declaring war on whoever. I can hardly trust the people I know who are in charge let alone delegate the declaration of war to God knows who.
Before any war or military action is entered into the Parliament must make the decision and the Privy Council must be fully informed.
I also take issue with the United Nations and the Americans and whoever else insist on interfering in the internal affairs of independant nations. What nations do inside their borders, is that nations business, when the offensive action spill across other courntries borders, then it becomes the issue for larger groups of the world community.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#18
Quote:

Machjo

Thanks for your point by point response to my post. It appears this thread has run it's course, but I will make one final point.

To lay down a set of rules which must be adhered to is tantamount to a constitution. No matter what Government sits in the house of commons (Conservative or Liberal) they have illustrated that making change, in particular constitutional change, is something of a paradox. Change has been made, but it is always a lethargic exercise.

Laying down a set of rules could prove nightmarish for our Country should an act of war or terrorism completely change the scope of our militaries mission.

Lethargy is something we just can't afford when it comes to war.

M
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#19
While I agree that Canada should have a military of at least a hundred thousand strong, in the combined air, sea, and ground forces, the force should always be under the control of the elected government.

We the people should make it clear that the dismal condition that our military was allowed, by neglect, to slip into, is just not acceptable.

When I was in the service in the fifties, I believe we had around a hundred and twenty thousand in uniform. As far as I know our borders and coastlines haven't got any shorter, or the country any smaller.

I'm sure our WWO(Wing Warrant Officer) spun in his grave when half our equipment was stuck on a foreign ship.
 
Machjo
#20
Fair enough. Many here seem opposed to automatizing the military. In that case, what alternative ideas might there be to ensure the military is never used for partisan purposes as the US military often has been?
 
Machjo
#21
[quote="#juan"]While I agree that Canada should have a military of at least a hundred thousand strong"

I was thinking of the 100,000 more as a ceiling rather than a floor. I was even thinking, for bufget purposes, that such a force could even be shared among a few nations.

Unles we intend on taking over the world of course.
 
Machjo
#22
By the way, who's the other guy who voted in favour besides myself?
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#23
Machjo wrote:[quote]

Reply with quote
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

While I agree that Canada should have a military of at least a hundred thousand strong"

I was thinking of the 100,000 more as a ceiling rather than a floor. I was even thinking, for bufget purposes, that such a force could even be shared among a few nations.

Unles we intend on taking over the world of course.

Regardless of whatever sharing programs we might have with other countries, Canada needs a military of at least a hundred thousand. Compared with other G-7 countries, Canada is ten times their size and we spend half as much on our military.

We'd have a very hard time taking over the world with a hundred thousand people in our military.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

While I agree that Canada should have a military of at least a hundred thousand strong, in the combined air, sea, and ground forces, the force should always be under the control of the elected government.

We the people should make it clear that the dismal condition that our military was allowed, by neglect, to slip into, is just not acceptable.

When I was in the service in the fifties, I believe we had around a hundred and twenty thousand in uniform. As far as I know our borders and coastlines haven't got any shorter, or the country any smaller.

I'm sure our WWO(Wing Warrant Officer) spun in his grave when half our equipment was stuck on a foreign ship.

While there was a time when I would have agreed with the safety of having the military under the control of an elected government that time has passed we know that the military of the United States and the UK and Canada are for all intents and purposes under the control of the transnational coporations in other words big money and not the people but a small and exclusive segment of those constituancys. While it might appear that democratically elected governments control those military forces that is a facade, a paint job.
 
I think not
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

that time has passed we know that the military of the United States and the UK and Canada are for all intents and purposes under the control of the transnational coporations

Who's we?
 
MMMike
#26
Machjo, interesting idea and I can understand some of the rationnel, but in reality you can never really seperate war and politics. As Clausewitz said, "war is nothing but a continuation of politics by other means".

Your idea means rule of law fully trumping national sovereignty. Which I agree with to a certain extent (Canada's idea of Responsibility to Protect being a good example). But there's not a nation in the world that can't be accused of violating some aspect of international law. And the process for making that determination would become hopelessly political as well. Sorry, but this idea won't fly.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#27
Quote:

Darkbeaver:control of an elected government that time has passed we know that the military of the United States and the UK and Canada are for all intents and purposes under the control of the transnational coporations in other words big money and not the people but a small and exclusive segment of those constituancys. While it might appear that democratically elected governments control those military forces that is a facade, a paint job.

DBeaver: Do you really believe this stuff or are you just mixing it up and being provocative? I'm not getting personal either, I'm just wondering.

In your estimation, are the evil corporations directing the movement of Canadian Troops in Afghanistan. If so, for what? With the exception of opium and burka's Afghanistan has very few resources.

Perhaps the evil SANDBOX INDUSTRY? Eureka! Fisher Price. The evil Fisher Price is plotting to take all the worlds sand. LOL


Your goofing on this right?
 

Similar Threads

2
Canada sets up new military spy unit
by Praxius | May 26th, 2008
5
Less people joining military in Canada
by Researcher87 | Oct 15th, 2006
32
Should Canada have a military at all?
by thejames | Sep 8th, 2004