On The Profession Of Arms And The Importance Of Reading

A somewhat pompous title, I grant you.  Perhaps the formal tone is because I've been reading Jane Austen lately, which is always time well spent.

Speaking of reading, I was at a training review meeting several weeks ago and we were talking about how soldiers learn what's important.   For some things simple direction (e.g., wear your helmet) is direction enough, and for others the actual performance of a task, learning by doing, suffices.   But how do soldiers learn values and accept, even embrace, the military ethos?

This topic allowed me to mount my personal hobbyhorse and bemoan the absence in the Canadian Armed Forces of the commander's reading list.  There is an official CAF-published reading list from 2009, a substantial volume in its own right giving members a comprehensive list of resources on a wide variety of subjects for their own professional education.  Such a guide is well and good, but I would like something both more current, and more influential in the sense that the list comes from the boss.

If you google "Chief of Defence Staff Reading List" you will find a page published by the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom.   Australia's Army Chief published a reading list in 2012
and the US military's service chiefs each have a list published by the National Defence University.  The US Marine Corps, and this may surprise some, is apparently an intellectual hothouse and boasts six of its own reading lists.  Canada also has a Chief of Defence Staff, but I searched in vain for a reading list published by a senior Canadian officer in the last ten years, up to and including the CDS.

Besides the official military reading lists, there are a wealth of reliable guides to good books for soldiers.  Tom Ricks, one of the best defence journalists in the business today, published this list of lists in 2012 which will keep anyone going for years.   There are other such lists out there.

Returning to my original point, a senior commander's reading list, assuming that the boss has actually done the reading and has not simply delegated the task to a staff officer, is a way of signalling what he or she thinks is important.  The military ethos is built on emulation.  Junior officers will read whatever their senior officers, up to and including service chiefs, are reading. Everyone wants to be like the boss, because everyone hopes their career will also lead them upwards.  Thus, junior ranks will read whatever their sergeant majors, and especially their command sergeant majors, are reading.  In a military like my own, where that intellectual example and curiousity doesn't seem to be happening, that's a concern.

I missed an opportunity recently, when Canada's Chief of Defence Staff, General Vance, came to CFB Borden where I worked.  General Vance is a good soldier and a busy man, and he gave the assembled audience a lot of time and as much candour as he could.   I now regret that I didn't stand up and ask, "Sir, what three books have you read this year that you would recommend we all read?"

General Vance, sir, if you happen to be reading this, please leave the answer in the comments and I'll post it.

What about you, readers?  What books should we in uniform be reading?

MP+

Sadly, No Death Star Anytime Soon

It's astonishing to me that over 30,000 people signed a petition calling on the White House to "build the "Star Wars" inspired super-weapon to spur job growth and bolster national defense". I shouldn't be surprised at what people will sign. When I was on a whale watching tour in Nova Scotia I was entranced to learn that Greenpeace had called for names for a humpack whale it was following on its South Atlantic migration, and the winning name, with 119,367 votes, was Mr. Splashy Pants.

I still want to know, what were these people thinking? Does anyone really, seriously think that a Death Star, a moon-sized, galaxy roaming, planet-killing vessel, is either feasible or desirable? And how would it protect US security, seeing as US security problems, such as North Korea and Iran, are, well, on the same planet as the US? That would rather invalidate the planet-killing capability of the Death Star.

Fortunately, cooler heads are prevailing in Washington. On Friday last, "Paul Shawcross, an administration adviser on science and space, said a Death Star would cost too much to build — an estimated $850 quadrillion — at a time the White House is working to reduce the federal budget. Besides, Shawcross says, the Obama administration "does not support blowing up planets."

So it being a slow day in the mess, a bunch of us were thinking that it would be cool to be part of Death Star Command, assuming that such a thing was ever stood up. Just the shoulder badge alone would be awesome.

On the way home, I got to thinking about the merits of Canada stepping in, since the US is not interested in the project. I decided it would be unlikely, and here's why.

Top Ten Reasons Why Canada Probably Won't Build a Death Star

1) Language issues: would it be called "The Death Star" for English Canada, "L'Etoille de la Mort?" for French Canada, or "Dat Big Shiny 'Ting Dat Blows Stuff Up" in Newfoundland?

2) Provincial issues: Ottawa would have to parcel out construction projects to the provinces, requiring extensive drydock to spacedock upgrades in Halifax, Vancouver, and Montreal. A large Death Star maintenance contract to Winnipeg would be cancelled at the last minute and given to Quebec, thus creating a new generation's worth of East-West hostility.

3) Interservice issues: Fighting between the Navy and the Air Force over ownership of the Death Star project would take at least a generation to sort out. The Army would settle for a modest role as the Death Star Security Force, but this would mean long delays while white plastic stormtrooper uniforms were procured.

4) Cost issues: the Minister of Defence would lowball the cost at $600 quadrillion, and then revelation of cost overruns running the total to $850 quadrillion would paralyze Parliament for years. This delay would not include the costly F35 to TIE Fighter conversion project, which would have its own set of cost overruns and its own parliamentry debate. Expect a Crown Commission to be appointed to look into the costing issues.

5) Procurement issues: the Department of Defence would be castigated for considering European and US bids for design and construction of the Death Star. Demand would increase for a "made in Canada" Death Star, and at some point, someone would write to the Globe and Mail demanding that the Avro Arrow be built instead of a Death Star.

6) International law issues: Canadian Military police would be tasked to run the Death Star detention facilities, which, as Star Wars fans will recall, seems to be the second raison d'etre of having a Death Star other than blowing planets up. Post-Afghanistan concerns about potential mistreatment of Death Star detainees under international law would add yet another paralyzing debate to Parliament, especially when plans for the floating black globe with hypodermic needles were leaked. Situation is further complicated when Parliamentry subcommittee examines possible intergalactic law as it applies to alien detainees and their rights, such as Bothans and fur combs. Many long Supreme Court appeals ensue.

7)Security issues: Speaking of leaks, all the plans for Canada's Death Star would be sold by an RCN intel sub-lieutenant to a potentially hostile power for $200 and a pack of smokes. Luke and Han will not rescue the sub-lieutenant.

8)Manning issues: Crewing Canada's Death Star will require everyone currently serving in the Canadian Forces and then some. Civilian DND staff will be required to make up the Death Star's complement. Unfortunately, federal hiring freezes will make this impossible.

9)Environmental issues: Concerns about the habitat of the giant squid monsters in the Death Star trash compactors, and the need to protect them, will require that large sections of Canada's Death Star be declared as Environmentally Protected Areas, thus significantly degrading its operational effectiveness.

10) Cultural issues: Canadian public has a massive freak out when it learns that the federal government is building a Death Star. Massive debate in CBC and other media ensues as to whether a "Death Star" is in keeping with Canadian values and image in the world. Canadian neocons say "damn skippy it is", everyone else says no. Finally the government compromises on a Canadian Peacekeeping Star, but due to budget constraints what is finally built is a Canadian Peacekeeping Asteroid whose primary armament is a slightly larger Canadarm. A prototype is built, the project is cancelled, and the prototype is mysteriously destroyed, thus giving Canadian nationalists and conspiracy theorists new grist for their mill (see Avro, Arrow).

We're Not All Heroes

A reader of Tom Rick's military affairs blog makes a good point about how contemporary society and media lavish the word "hero" on practically everyone in uniform, to the point where the meaning of the word and the concept of heroism is being seriously devalued.

The same reader makes the point that because only a tiny fraction of society's members join the military, and a smaller fraction of those actually see combat, the overuse of the word hero betrays a guilty conscience at the disconnect between society and military.

"Sadly, as Americans we have devalued the word 'hero' by applying it to merely the performance of one's responsibility, much like parents today overly praise their children for everyday accomplishments. Particularly, especially in the media the expression 'hero' seems generic and contains a disturbing element of pandering.

Today, there is a vast void between those that wear a uniform and go in harm's way and those that don't. We watch from afar as uneasy spectators as our countrymen suffer death and wounds of the flesh and mind for causes we often hold in doubt. So we revert to a hyperbole of gratitude that is seemingly harmless but in fact laced with insincerity."

I have heard similar points repeatedly of late and they ring true to me. While the quote above comes out of the US context, I would say that the same is true of the Canadian situation. Noah Richler, whose recent book What We Talk About When We Talk About War, makes much the same point when he notes that our rhetoric on Canada's recently concluded combat mission in Afghanistan belies the fact that less than 1% of the population, as deployed soldiers and their immediate families, were actually touched by that war (compared to 18% of the population in World War One. Afghanistan, Richler writes, "has not even slightly been felt by Canadians other than as that flattering, self-aggrandizing idea" which is reinforced by terms like "Highway of Heroes".

The Richler quote comes from a May 2 essay in The National Post, and I have not read the book yet, but plan to. While I disagree with some of what I've heard him say in interviews, I think Richler, like Ricks' readers, are on to something. I agree with them that the disconnect between North American elites and their all-volunteer militaries is becoming increasingly profound. Fewer and fewer sons and daughters of moneyed and privileged families choose military service, as witnessed by Mitt Romney's sons, who their dad claims serve America by serving his campaign rather than by serving in uniform. The rank and file of our volunteer forces come from disadvantaged and marginal parts of the country, as suggested by the claim, sometimes made by military members, that they are the real 1%. The 99% of society is content to outsource its wars to this small minority, in the same way that Victorian England fought its imperial wars with small armies of despised Tommies from the slums, augmented by colonial mercenary minorities from the British Isles and the Empire abroad. Meanwhile, the 99% adopts a sentimentalized rhetoric of heroism, sacrifice, and gratitude to the service of its troops that masks this social disparity.

Please don't get me wrong, for I am deeply humbled that men and women in uniform are seen as heroes. I know many in the CF who remember and would not return to the days, after Somalia, when they never wore their uniforms in public. I merely wish that there was more honesty in much of our talk about heroism and service. I can't help but think that true heroism and service, for the rich and for the poor alike, could be better measured by accepting without complaint the call to serve in the military, whether through a national service scheme or through conscription in time of war. That might make our talk of heroism more meaningful.

New Weapons for the Canadian Forces?

New weapons in the war on stress and frayed nerves, perhaps. The Globe and Mail tweeted a story wondering why Canada's Department of National Defence needed to purchase 20,000 yellow rubber stress balls.

The Mop and Pail wondered if Canada's generals are worried about morale as the government prepares to announce job and funding cuts. Or perhaps they are preparing us to deal with the stressful news that one of our own has been arrested for spying.

Very funny. Hardee har har. Anyone who has ever worked a trade show booth knows that little toys like stress balls go like hotcakes, so no surprise there that recruiting, public affairs, and other outreach departments would want these.

Poor DND, is every procurement doomed to be controversial? This seems so Canadian, some how.

The General's Jet

If you are Canadian, you will have likely heard that there has been a bit of a flap on since CTV News ran a story on the cost of jet travel incurred by Canada's top soldier, General Walter Natynczyk, the Chief of Defence Staff.

I'm a serving member of the Canadian Forces and I can't comment directly on this controversy. I'll simply say two things. First, if you're interested in this matter, you need to read this piece in today's Globe and Mail by George Petrolekas, who offers an insider's view on what happens on the CDS' Challenger jet.

Secondly, some months ago the CDS visited CFB Suffield for a few hours. We are a small base in an out of the way part of Alberta. The closest airport is Medicine Hat, and you can't fly there directly. Either you take a commuter flight from Calgary or you drive the three hours from Calgary Airport. The CDS flew his Challenger into Med Hat, and spent a few hours with us. There are barely one hundred uniformed CF members here, but it meant a lot to us that our top soldier came here to talk to us and listen to us. I have no idea where he was before Suffield, and where he went afterwards, but I am pretty sure the only reason he could carve time out of an insane schedule to visit us was because of his Challenger jet. I for one think that was taxpayer's money well spent.

"Really moving backward": Paul Hellyer on the return of "royal" to Canadian Navy, Air Force

"Is he still alive?" A friend in the mess said that this morning when I mentioned that Paul Hellyer, Minister of Defence under Prime Minister Trudeau, had weighed in on the government's announcement that Canada was going back to "Royal Canadian Navy" and "Royal Canadian Air Force". Paul Hellyer, arguably, still holds the title as most hated man in Canadian military circles. He was the Minister who in 1968 pushed the unification of the Canadian army, navy and air force, and abolished the term "Royal" (Canada's army alone of the three services has never used "Royal" in its title though many regiments do).

For the record, Hellyer had this to say when speaking to CBC news yesterday: "I'm very disappointed, actually very sad … I think it's really moving backward," Hellyer told CBC News, adding that the name changes are returning Canada — and the Forces — to a "semi-colonial status."

I still hear my seminary principal, George Sumner, saying that its easy to swim downstream, but it's hard to be a contrarian, so I'll go out on a limb and say that for me, personally, I'm with Hellyer on this one. I love tradition as much as the next soldier, but I think the term "royal" doesn't connect with many serving members today, particularly younger ones and especially those who are not of Anglo background. Two years ago I did a military course (OPME) on Canadian society, and wrote a paper on demographic trends facing the CF in the next decades. By 2031, one in four Canadians will have been born outside of Canada. Falling birthrates and an aging population will see the Anglo identity of Canada and of the CF slowly fading. So I'm not sure how the "Royal" appelation connects with the new Canadians whom the CF will have to recruit in the coming decades. Nor do I see how it connects with Franco-Canadians, who have proudly served in Afghanistan alongside theur Anglo comrades.

I'd also point out that the whole trajectory of Canadian military history, as forged at places such as Vimy Ridge, was of Canadian soldiers proving their own worth under their own command. I think that trajectory continues today. Lt. Col. Ian Hope, who commanded Task Force Orion in Afghanistan in 2006, made this observation about the US troops he worked with: "I realized that, at some point in the past decade, we have had a fundamental shift in the culture of the Canadian infantry, making us identify most readily with American, and not British, soldiers." (Hope, Lt. Col. Ian. “Agility and Endurance: Task Force Orion in Helmand.” Outside the Wire: The War in Afghanistan in the Words of Its Participants. Eds. Kevin Patterson and Jane Warren. Toronto: Random House, 2007, p. 154). I serve on a base with British soldiers, and I love them, they're great soldiers, but I'm proud to wear a Canadian maple leaf on my shoulder and, occasionally, I feel the need to remind some of the shirtier oners that they are guests in this country and not our masters or betters. Returning to a military heritage of colonial times, I think, takes us backwards rather than forwards. What Hellyer was trying to do was envision a role for Canada in a new world in a new century. I think today we're losing some of that vision, and I regret it.

More on Syrupy Remembrance Day Kitsch

Here's a reason why I was glad to read Christie Blatchford as stated in the previous post. By the end of this week, I had received my share of maudlin and bad emails. Here's one that a co-worker sent me, supposedly about the origin of Taps or, as we Canadians and Brits know it, The Last Post.

The email claimed that the creation of Taps dates to 1862, when a Union army captain named Ellicombe heard a dying soldier crying out at night. Not knowing if the soldier was Union or Conederate, he crawled out "through the gunfire", and pulled the man back to safety. Ellicombe then lit a lantern and discovered (horror!) that the (now dead) soldier was his own son, in a Confederate uniform (gasp! sob!). Why was his son in a Confederate uniform, you ask? I'll tell you! Because he was in the south studying music before the war, and for some reason joined to fight for Dixie. Ellicombe asked if his son could be buried with full military honours, even though he was a Reb, and was told he could only have a bugler. Guess what? They found some music in the dead boy's pocket that he'd actually written, and the bugler played it, and guess what? That music was Taps! "This music was the haunting melody we know as Taps that is used at all military funerals". (Need a kleenex yet?)

Maybe you've gotten that email yourself. Setting aside the fact that it strains all credulity well past the breaking point, it's factually wrong, and has been since the story first started circulating in the 1930s! Since I know a little bit about the American Civil War, I knew that Taps was written for Union General Dan Butterfield because he didn't like the bugle call for "Extinguish Lights". The story is fully debunked on Snopes , and, since some people in my experience think that Snopes is just some mean guy's opinion and isn't true, the authoritative story of Taps can also be found on the Arlington National Cemetery and West Point websites.




Dan Butterfield

My point being, it does no honour to the memory of sacrifices past and present to circulate this sort of historical rubbish. Before you hit forward, take a moment to look into the accuracy of what you may be sending.

By the way, I complimented my coworker on sending me a lovely story, and offered my regrets that it was not true. I also sent him the Arlington, Snopes and West Point links and suggested he look at them. In my experience, correcting people on forwarded emails is never helpful and just makes you look like a prick, but I think Christie Blatchford would agree with me that it's the right thing to do.

Notable Quotable: Christy Blatchford on the Oprah-ization of Remembrance Day

I was glad to read Christie Blatchford in today's Globe and Mail on the syrupy kitsch that has been accruing lately around Remembrance Day. Here's a taste:

"I cannot help but imagine that as glad as [our soldiers] might be for civilian Canada’s current devotion to “supporting the troops" – if only because it is far less unpleasant than the dark days of the Canadian Forces when soldiers occasionally would be spit upon – they would have little stomach for the witless sappiness that has been in the air all week.

If corporate Canada really wanted to show its appreciation for soldiers, companies could hire more of them when they leave the army: All any soldier really learns is how to lead, how to care more for his fellows than he does for himself. Surely the world can use a little more of that.

And if you really must say thanks to a veteran, send him over a damn drink and shut up."

Who Says Canadian Military Itching for a Fight?

The Globe and Mail, apparently. Interesting news piece that a Canadian General, Andrew Leslie, has been asked by the UN to lead what seems to be a traditional mix of blue helmeted peacekeepers from the usual countries in the Congo. Not surprised that Lew MacKenzie is quoted as saying this would be a bad idea, with the potential to be a second Rwanda, since historically the UN peackeeping missions in the 90s weren't all that great (anyone remember Srebrenica?). Not surprised again that CF leaders would want to do a Congo mission on their own terms, but that's not the same thing as itching for a fight.

CBC Coverage of Afghanistan Casualties

Anonymous comments from army colleagues:

Just found out about another two soldiers killed overseas. Another sobering day to be in the army.

On another note, the CBC continues it's deification of Quebec soldiers at the expense of all the other soldiers in the CF.

From CBC this morning: "The soldiers were from the famed Quebec-based Royal 22nd Regiment, known as the Van Doos."

Emphasis mine. I'm getting sick of this.

For comparison's sake, let's look at some of the other articles from the CBC.

- Dawe, Bartsch and Watkins were all from the Edmonton-based 3rd Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. Bason was a reservist with the B.C.'s Royal Westminster Regiment.

- Master Cpl. Allan Stewart, 30, and Trooper Patrick James Pentland, 23, of the Royal Canadian Dragoons, were based in Petawawa, Ont.

- Four were with Gagetown, N.B.-based 2nd Battalion, the Royal Canadian Regiment: Sgt. Donald Lucas, 31, Cpl. Aaron E. Williams, 23, and Privates Kevin Vincent Kennedy,20, and David Robert Greenslade, 20. Cpl. Christopher Paul Stannix, 24, a reservist from the Halifax-based Princess Louise Fusiliers, also died.

And so it goes. Everyone but the Van Doos gets a location, but the Van Doos get "famed." Oh well, whatever it takes to keep them in the war, I guess...

Maybe we should rewrite some of those to truly reflect what they are saying:

Cpl Huffnagle was from the "Adequate" 3rd Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry

Sgt Dramamine was from the "Seemingly sanguine yet potentially lethal" Royal Canadian Dragoons

MCpl Throatwarblermangrove was from the "Not nearly as famous as the VanDoos" Royal Canadian Regiment