Bilingualism required in Canadian Forces: Good or Bad?

[Machjo]

Re: RE: Bilingualism required

Would it be wise for the military to require all members to be bilingual, even if that means having to hire foreigners?

Uh sorry to burst that bubble there chet, but when you start hiring foreigners to do your military work, we call them mercenaries. This is....yes, this is the stupidest idea I have ever read/heard.

As for mercenaries, I used to be in the Canadian forces. Now let's see. We had one instructor referring one of his superiors as a nigger (behind his back of course, coward), another had "skin head" tattooed on his knuckles and neck, along with a Neo-Nazi flag on one arm and a Union Jack on the other, another was a collector of nazi paraphernalia, another called people "Jew" and an insult to mean a cheapskate, another joined to get training in the infantry so that he could eventually become an instructor for the freemen, and meanwhile skwaw, long haired greacy civvie, Paky, Jap, Chink, and every other nice word was a daily part of the vocabulary. And these were the PPCLI which was going to defend the best interests of the people they obviously hated so much!

So is that really better than Mercenaries? Consider that France has the French Foreign Legion, so it's not a new concept. And Arabs maintaining the peace in Afghanistan might at least understand thsoe Afghans who speak Arabic as a second language, not to mention that I'm sure at least some words are similar, most would share the same religion, racially they'd probably look similar, and due to these similarities, an Arab-made Canadian force is more likely to genuinely care about the best interests of the Afghan people, whom they would perceive as brothers in faith, than would the motley crue I'd just described above whith whom I'd actually lived for months of training. Please show me the flaw there.

1. In the event that Canada must go to another country to fight, it can gather it's troops who can speak the local language and are familiar with the local culture. In the case of Afghanista, for instance, immagine Canadian soldiers who can speak Dari or Pashta, and who might have some familiarity with Islam and Afghan culture, along with their do's and dont's

1. So you're suggesting that only people with an Arab background, who speak the lingo should deploy? So we'd have, right now, 2,500 non-Canadians, directed by non-Canadians, representing a Canada they don't care about in Afghanistan? Do you stop to think before you start typing, or are you huffing gas?

hmmm... First off, they'd probably gain a lot of respect for Canada if Canada did this. And secondly, the goal is not to try to make everyone care for Canada, but rather to look out for the best interests of the Afghan people. So I don't even see the relationship here. Please explain.

2. Canadian military strategists, when considering the plan of attack in another country, could consult with their own troops and see what would be culturally acceptabel and not, very clearly before war even begins. Let's say, for instance, that Canada is about to go into Afghanista and, according to current strategy, the Afghan platoons thow down their arms in rage saying there is no way in hell they're going to do that, then we know how the locals are going to react! So the strategy could be catered to deal with PR problem early. In the event that there is a shortage of such soldiers, then they can be placed as consultants within each platoon.

Perhaps the closest example to such a concept today would be the French Foreing Legion. But here I'm expanding a similar concept across the board to the Canadian military.

As for disadvantages, certainly it would mean taht only those Canadians who are bilingual (and this does not limit itself to French and English) could work in the military. It would also mean that military strategy would need to be more well thought out and not just rushed through at a whim, so as to ensure that local circumstances are considered. This could of course lead to more limitations as to the extent to which the military could be used.

So we'd put everything to a democratic vote? So tomorrow for example, I have a 10km run with my unit at 7am, and if we all just don't show up, does the Regimental Sergeant Major just assume it was a bad idea and live with it? So your plan, would have non-Canadians throughout the Army making calls on how the Army was run, and when and where it deployed? Once again, are you high?

I just don't get why you are so damned emotional. First off, of course they'd go where they must. But obviously if the war starts to look like a clash of civilizations, the higher levels of teh military would have to start considering things more seriously than they do now. After all, right now half the military (unless it's changed since I was in) throw up the Sieg Heil! If it wasn't so homogenous, loyalty could not be in the nation anymore, but in ideals. this would make it more challenging to the military to go to war, but would also ensure that when it does, support would be high since it would have ensured before going that it does in fact have support beyond just that of WASPs


You clearly have no concept of combined operations or even how the military works. You suggest that only people who speak more than one language could join the Army. See, we have a word for that in our society, it's called discrimination.

How is looking for more qualified people discrimination? That would be like saying that if I hire an engineer with an engeneering degree I'm discriminating against those who don't?

Furthermore if this magical army did exist, how would you plan on staffing an effective force is you placed such ridgid restrictions on recruitment? We have a hard time recruitng as it is, yet you'd suggest we scrap everyone who is monoligual, me for instance?

Ah, now I see why you are so emotional. Personal considerations! But wait a minute, I thought you'd joined for teh best interests of Canada, not your own :?

When did I ever type that we ought to start booting people out. I was mearely suggesting that we start from now one for new recruits. As for staffing, right now the Canadian army limits itself to citizens. Without that limit, recruits could be hired worldwide. Easy staffing, especially considering DND wages compared to abroad.

And since the soldiers know little about Islam, and even less Arabic, they are simply not in any position to solve these clashes beyond Abu ghraib style sharades.

When the 3rd Canadian Division landed on Juno Beach on D-Day during World War II, they knew nothing about France, or Holland, or Germany, and their ways of life. In the 40's the world was isolated pockets of cultures, there was no cross talk as there is today. Yet those men that landed in 1944 kicked the German's asses back to Berlin over the next year. My point? A Division of mainly english Canadians sailed 1/2 way across the World to a continent, but a handful had ever read about, let alone been to, and they won. Language and cultural acceptance has nothing to do with winning a war.

Completely different situation. Then it was a war between nations (i.e., Us vs them, and the battle lines were clearly drawn). That applied at the beginning of the Iraq war too. But once the army collapses, then it's a whole different ballgame. After the collapse of the Nazi regime, the Allioes were fighting street by street and killed many teenagers fighting on behalf of the Hitler Jungen. There again, a knowledge of German could have been useful for a soldier after the collapse of the Nazi regime, to gradually switch from street fighting to PR. But lack of German prevented that. Luckily, however, since many Germans were secretly allied with us anyway, they offered help. In Iraq, the US doesn't have as many allies, with many being indifferent or violently opposed. There, now that the regime has collapsed and the battle lines aren't so clear anymore, who knows who is friend and who is foe. Arabic would be useful knowledge without a doubt, unless we just intend to blow them all up indiscriminately of course.

Good point. Then let's talk about peace keeping, since that is the bulk of operations anyway. And even when it is to fight, PR is still importan; it was in Vietnam, and due to PR failure on the US' part, they lost the war despite superior technology. Iraq started as a war likewise, and still is. yet there likewise, PR proves crucial to success or failure. But how to achieve that when troops can't even speak the local language beyond "Shut up!"?

Man, you're totally embodying their peacekeeping stance that every Canadian takes. We haven't deployed for peacekeeping since Operation ADDITION, our mission to Eritrea in 2000. I hate how Canadians have this vision that we're a peacekeeping military, when we've spent more time at war in the last 100 years than peacekeeping. News flash, Macedonia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, those were/are warzones, there are no blue berets there. When you see pictures of troops in Afghanistan, are they waving U.N. Flags and wearing blue berets? No, because they're not over there peacekeeping, contrary to what the news says. They're conducting combat operations. Also I think I pointed this out once before on another forum macho, the U.S. didn't lose Vietnam because of "PR", they lost because by the end their main source of fighting men were hippy dope-smoking draftees. Lastly, when Canadians deploy overseas, they take weeks of language training. When we deploy to Afghanistan we're given phrase books and quized on phrases common to the locals. So your take on us not knowing anything beyond "shut up" is slightly misguided my friend.

I would like to sum up with saying that this idea is the dumbest thing i've heard of next to Jonathan Swift suggestion the Irish peasents feed their babies to the rich.

P.S. Anyone that voted yes to this idea is a moron. No offense :roll:[/quote]

Even in a war zone, PR is obviously important when kids and women start blowing themselves up as has happenned on occasion. As for language training, I know a few languages myself, and can't immagine a high level of fluency with nothing but a crash course. So I suspect that when a foreign-looking soldier from a foreign country starts waving a gun in your face shouting foreign words at you mixed in with the odd basic words of your language, it's going to be interpreted as "Shut up!" at best, and more along the lines of "Shut the f*ck up, hands up, down on your knees, and fast like the devil or I'll put a f*cking bullet through your head!" in most cases. These people are not going to go home and say "hey, I met a canadian today; he was so sweet". Now I know that in a combat zone, even if you were fluent in the local language, it might be necessary to make such warnings. But at least, once the situation is secured, it might then be possible to soften the damage at least a little rather than, "oh, ok, they're safe, let 'em go." and that's it. With one of them comming back the next day thinking "I loved Canadians before, but now I think it's time they got out of my country, willingly or not!"

Just some thoughts. I'm well aware that a little communication can go a long way. And you're obviously unilingual from the sound of your post.

 

[Machjo]

Re: RE: Bilingualism required in Canadian Forces: Good or Ba

2. Canadian military strategists, when considering the plan of attack in another country, could consult with their own troops and see what would be culturally acceptabel and not, very clearly before war even begins. Let's say, for instance, that Canada is about to go into Afghanista and, according to current strategy, the Afghan platoons thow down their arms in rage saying there is no way in hell they're going to do that, then we know how the locals are going to react! So the strategy could be catered to deal with PR problem early. In the event that there is a shortage of such soldiers, then they can be placed as consultants within each platoon.


Wow... Are you off your rocker? They should consult their own troops and see how they would react?

You must be smoking some pretty powerful stuff up there.

Democracy in the military... what a laugh. If that is your idea I hope you are planning for a lot of failed missions.

"OK soldiers we are going in."
"No way Sir!"
"Hmmm.... ok... let us sit down and talk about our emotions and feelings."

Alright, I misworded that. Certainly not democracy in the military. But if there were more foreigners, chances are that some would make it up the chain of command. And certainly if those near the top are more diverse, they could still voice concerns which will be considered before going in.

 

[Mogz]

RE: Bilingualism required

I just don't get why you are so damned emotional. First off, of course they'd go where they must. But obviously if the war starts to look like a clash of civilizations, the higher levels of teh military would have to start considering things more seriously than they do now.

Emotional? Hardly. Anti-stupidity? Yes. There will always be a clash of civilization when a military deploys to a foreign land. Hell, I live in Canada and recently visited Las Vegas, the United States, even that is a clash of cultures at times.

After all, right now half the military (unless it's changed since I was in) throw up the Sieg Heil! If it wasn't so homogenous, loyalty could not be in the nation anymore, but in ideals. this would make it more challenging to the military to go to war, but would also ensure that when it does, support would be high since it would have ensured before going that it does in fact have support beyond just that of WASPs

Sieg...Heil? Dude that was NAZI Germany from 1933-1945, not Canada. I'm not sure where you're getting that from but i'd suggest you rethink comparing the Canadian Army to the NAZI Party. So you'd plan on having the military more loyal to ideals? News flash, we are loyal to ideals. For example I joined the Army to serve this nation and to ensure the Canada I know and love in never placed in harms way. That's an ideal my friend. If you're refering to political ideals, that's not a soldiers job, to review the political ramifications of going to war. The Government points and he marches. Support for war will never be high in the 21st Century, people are too pacifistic to appreciate how needed war is some times. It took 30 years and over 120 dead soldiers for the Canadian public to even remotely begin to care about the Canadian Forces again. We spent years in the social dark, often forgotten about unless it suited some political need to acknowledge us. These days the Forces are supported to the best of a democratic societies ability, a society that includes more than "WASPS".

How is looking for more qualified people discrimination? That would be like saying that if I hire an engineer with an engeneering degree I'm discriminating against those who don't?

You cannot deem a persons ability or inability to speak a language as a qualification in a bilingual society. You cannot say that the guy who speaks French and English is better than the guy who speaks only French. It is discrimination my friend. You cannot draw a relationship between language and education. Yes someone with an engineering degree is REQUIRED to be an engineer, however a person doesn't need to speak a particular language to do that job. A Frenchman, Englishman, Arab, Asian, they all can be an engineer, provided they have the degree. To sumize, deeming that only bilingual individuals can join the Forces would a.) chop our current force strength in half and b.) would be against the equal employability act that Government has in place.

Ah, now I see why you are so emotional. Personal considerations! But wait a minute, I thought you'd joined for teh best interests of Canada, not your own Confused

When did I ever type that we ought to start booting people out. I was mearely suggesting that we start from now one for new recruits. As for staffing, right now the Canadian army limits itself to citizens. Without that limit, recruits could be hired worldwide. Easy staffing, especially considering DND wages compared to abroad.

]

I'm not emotional as I pointed out. Worse things have been said about me and the organization I work for than i've read on these forums. I just think this is the dumbest idea I have ever heard, seriously, i'm not even joking when I say that. With regard to "personal considerations", the Canadian Government employs me because they need me, and I work for them because I believe in what the job does. If the Government ever has recourse to terminate my services then i'll obey, however this is a ridiculously hypothetical situation anyway. My point was to indeitfy the fact that you'd deem me unfit for military service because I speak soley English, without regard for my capabilites as a soldier. You'd, in effect, place language ability above a persons' ability to perform as a soldier. If a person can speak 5 languages but cannot shoot worth shit he's fit for the Forces, but a monolingual individual who is a perfect soldier isn't? Come on, think about that for a second, seriously. Ok fine, lets assume that for a second this plan works, and from here on out only bilingual soldiers are recruited. How can a Government agency blatantly contradict themselves by letting people remain in the Forces that blatantly do not meet the current recruitment standards. For example, the CF Express Test, the physical fitness test required to enter the forces, states a set of criteria that a soldier must meet in order to be accepted and retain employment in the military. When they update the Express Test, the changes go for the members currently serving in the Forces regardless of years in. The same would have to apply for linguistic skills. You'd, regardless of how you played it, lose every monolingual soldier in the military.

Completely different situation. Then it was a war between nations (i.e., Us vs them, and the battle lines were clearly drawn). That applied at the beginning of the Iraq war too. But once the army collapses, then it's a whole different ballgame. After the collapse of the Nazi regime, the Allioes were fighting street by street and killed many teenagers fighting on behalf of the Hitler Jungen. There again, a knowledge of German could have been useful for a soldier after the collapse of the Nazi regime, to gradually switch from street fighting to PR. But lack of German prevented that. Luckily, however, since many Germans were secretly allied with us anyway, they offered help. In Iraq, the US doesn't have as many allies, with many being indifferent or violently opposed. There, now that the regime has collapsed and the battle lines aren't so clear anymore, who knows who is friend and who is foe. Arabic would be useful knowledge without a doubt, unless we just intend to blow them all up indiscriminately of course.

It is not a different situation. I pointed out that there is no need for the type of organization you suggest. You have declared that a foreign fueled military with particular knowledge of the current warzone would aid in the winning of the war. I disproved that by pointing out that a bunch of Canadian farm boys sailed to Europe and kicked ass without any prior knowledge of the land they were invading. When the NAZI "regime" collapsed, the war ended bud, there was no fighting afterwards. Furthermore the Allies fought street to street in every city, dating back to the Desert Campaign in the early 40's. Street to street conflict did not become prevelant soley when the German command structure was considering surrender. The Hitlerjungen (Hitler's Boys for those who don't know) were a fanatical group of men in their late teens and early 20's, they were fanatical because they'd be spoon-fed political propoganda from day one of their training. I fail to see how a wide knowledge of German on the Canadian Armies part would have helped against fighting the Germans, especially the Hitlerjungen. First off the German Army was extremely disciplined, no reasoning by Allied soldiers in German would have gotten them to lay down their arms. Secondly the Hitlerjungen were, as I stated above, fanatical, public relations wouldn't do much to stop them. During the Battle of Kursk (2nd one I think) a Hitlerjungen battalion charged the Russian lines directly through a minefield. The Hitlerjungen battalion was decimated but not a single one retreated. Do you honestly think a few words of German directed towards them by the Russians would have stopped them in their tracks? Get real. I fail to see how speaking arabic would instally make all Iraqi's acceptant of U.S. occupation. If I put a U.S. soldier who speaks any arabic dialect in the hands of Al-qaeda, they'd cut his head off on national televions even as he pleads for his life in their own language.

Even in a war zone, PR is obviously important when kids and women start blowing themselves up as has happenned on occasion. As for language training, I know a few languages myself, and can't immagine a high level of fluency with nothing but a crash course. So I suspect that when a foreign-looking soldier from a foreign country starts waving a gun in your face shouting foreign words at you mixed in with the odd basic words of your language, it's going to be interpreted as "Shut up!" at best, and more along the lines of "Shut the f*ck up, hands up, down on your knees, and fast like the devil or I'll put a f*cking bullet through your head!" in most cases. These people are not going to go home and say "hey, I met a canadian today; he was so sweet". Now I know that in a combat zone, even if you were fluent in the local language, it might be necessary to make such warnings. But at least, once the situation is secured, it might then be possible to soften the damage at least a little rather than, "oh, ok, they're safe, let 'em go." and that's it. With one of them comming back the next day thinking "I loved Canadians before, but now I think it's time they got out of my country, willingly or not!"

Just some thoughts. I'm well aware that a little communication can go a long way. And you're obviously unilingual from the sound of your post.

In a warzone PR comes way behind finding and killing the enemy my friend. If women and children want to blow themselves up, no amount of PR is going to deter them. You cannot seriously expect every Canadian soldier deploying abroad to be fully fluent in the language, that's retarded. However I shot down your claim that all our soliders could say was "shut up". As for your quote refering to them thinking Canadians are "sweet", actually yes we're very well respected in Afghanistan. When an 11 year old Afghani boy runs up to you and gives you a hug because you just brought him a backpack full of school supplies, that's generally an indication that they like you. Or when a women rolls her ankle while crossing the street and your LAV-III stops in the middle of traffic to let the medic examine her to make sure nothing is broken, i'm sure she went home happy. I am unilingual, and I think I mentioned that IN my post there bud. But that has nothing to do with the fact I think this is idea is moronic. In fact i'm in the process of taking French classes. My stand is based on the fact that this idea calls for unattainable changes to the Army, the command structure, and our way of doing things overseas. It's a pipe dream, something that would utterly ruin the military before it even came close to helping us win a single war.

 

[Sassylassie]

First get rid of the idiot General that thinks Canadian troops need to be bilingual. Canada is predominatley English, where the hell are these French speaking members going to come from. Atlantic Canada makes up most of the Navy and Air Force with a small seqment from Quebec and New Brunswick. The Army is much more diverse. This regulation would give current French speaking members an unfair advantage over their English counterparts. Canada uses INTERPERTERS IN THE FIELD, LOCALS THAT CAN SPEAK THE LAUNGAGE. What's next an Arts Degree, yep that would make a better Pilot, Fish head and Fighter in the field. You can bore the enemy to death in French.

 

[Mogz]

RE: Bilingualism required

Sassy has an excellent point I failed to touch on. 2/3 of the Canadian Navy come from Atlantic Canada. I'm not sure on the numbers but i'd bet the vast majority don't speak French due to the educational systems where they're from. I'm in the Army and even when I was on my QL3s the geographical breakdown was:

British Columbia: 0
Alberta: 4 (me and 3 others)
Saskatchewan: 0
Manitoba: 0
Ontario: 3
Quebec: 1
Nova Scotia: 3
New Brunswick: 6
Newfoundland: 7
PEI: 1
The Territories: 0

 

[TenPenny]

Atlantic Canada makes up most of the Navy and Air Force with a small seqment from Quebec and New Brunswick.

What on earth is this supposed to mean? NB is one quarter of Atlantic Canada. Can you clarify your point?

 

[Curiosity]

Machjo

In response to my testy post regarding "invading France"...you replied:
First off, bilingual does not mean specifically English and Frenhc (that's a misconception among some Canadians). And secondly, so few people are multilingual that it would be hard to enfoece such a standard; I think bilingual would suffice.

In the case of Canada and its government - bilingual is the order of the day - and the "bi" in this case would be French/English.

No doubt the "bilingual military" of Canada have already worked out that glitch in communications - and with most of the military jargon these days with their achronyms and verbal shorthand ..they have set up their own language.

Sorry to confuse the issue! I was really cranky when I posted that.
Crankier than usual I mean!

 

[Mogz]

RE: Bilingualism required

What on earth is this supposed to mean? NB is one quarter of Atlantic Canada. Can you clarify your point?

I think she messed up

 

[Mogz]

RE: Bilingualism required

No doubt the "bilingual military" of Canada have already worked out that glitch in communications - and with most of the military jargon these days with their achronyms and verbal shorthand ..they have set up their own language.

Actually in the Canadian Forcees the official communication languages is English. For example there are no "French only" radio nets. Granted if an exercise is going on in Valcartier Quebec, then a French net could be used, however if the parties involved are both French and English, an English radio net will be used with no exceptions.

 

[Sassylassie]

Nope I didn't mess it up, I am well aware that NB is part of the Maritimes. I used New Brunsick as an example like Quebec where members will have the advantage of speaking french. NB is a bilingual province, Nes Pas? Why should two Provinces that are Bilinqual dictate Miltary Policy.

 

[Booh]

Why should two Provinces that are Bilinqual dictate Miltary Policy.

Actually, Québec isn't bilingual.

Neither is Canada for that matter. The official bilingualism is bullshit, we all know that, and only exists to make French Canadians feel like they are equal to their English counterparts, which is also bullshit as we all know.

 

[Mogz]

RE: Bilingualism required

Ok I see where you're coming from Sassy, however Quebec, as Booh pointed out, isn't bilingual. The only truly biglingual Province in Canada is New Brunswick.

 

[TenPenny]

Nope I didn't mess it up, I am well aware that NB is part of the Maritimes. I used New Brunsick as an example like Quebec where members will have the advantage of speaking french. NB is a bilingual province, Nes Pas? Why should two Provinces that are Bilinqual dictate Miltary Policy.

I understand now. As pointed out, NB is the only bilingual policy.

Years ago, the federal government recognized that the present day Canada was created by two main groups: the english speaking and the french speaking groups, who were the main elements to the political and cultural creation of Canada.

To this day, there are many people who don't seem to understand. I'd be interested to hear what Provinces didn't have a french influence on them. Any suggestions? Why do people have a problem recognizing the French part of Canadian development? Why is bilingualism such a problem for you folks?