Canadian Snipers say U.S. ties angered comrades

[RACooper]

Right for those who don’t know Canadian troops have been serving in Afghanistan since the beginning of the War on Terror… some with high distinction, such as the six snipers sent over – including one who may have set a new record for making a kill at extreme distances.

Article on the conduct and service of the Canadian snipers in Afghanistan:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...6271952413_269

Now there is an investigation over the treatment of these snipers by the rest of the Canadian contingent while over in Afghanistan:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=968350116467

Since this involves the old Regiment it was relatively easy to chat with some of the guys to find out what was up… as well as chatting with some of the snipers from other units.

There seemed to be a consensus that they became “too close” to US doctrine and practice during the service with US troops… specifically abandoning Regimental traditions in favour of US ones – something that is more or less the equivalent of a Fraternity brother “switching” allegiance to another Fraternity (closest analogy I could come up with).

I think most of the tension stems from two fronts… one a lingering resentment for US policies concerning the UN, as up to 90% of the unit has served more than one tour with the UN as peacekeepers – constant comments about the uselessness of the UN was seen as calling into question their previous service as “useless”. The second is the still simmering issue of the friendly-fire (or fratricide) incident that happened in Afghanistan… there are troops that resent the initial accusations of error on their part, the characterization of the incident in some US media circles, and the feeling that Major Schmidt got off very lightly because of politics (charges lessened around the same time as Canada said no to Iraq).

Now personally I can understand the cold shoulder that they got because of the adoption of US military practices or traditions – as that was seen as a slap in the face to the unit and those who have served in the Regiment, past and present… with tensions and emotions high over the fratricide some saw there actions as insulting to their dead comrades… However I also feel that efforts should have been made to bring them back into the fold so to speak, instead of shunning them; as this only reinforced the growing divide between the snipers and the rest of the unit.

[Rudey]

Since Canadian military members are acting disgraceful to them, I think America should gladly accept them.

-Rudey

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by RACooper

I think most of the tension stems from two fronts… one a lingering resentment for US policies concerning the UN, as up to 90% of the unit has served more than one tour with the UN as peacekeepers – constant comments about the uselessness of the UN was seen as calling into question their previous service as “useless”.

I get the friendly-fire side of things - I feel like that's a potential hot-button issue, and I can't really say there shouldn't be an emotional response to that. But the UN side of things - is that primary or secondary?


I personally feel that the UN is pretty much a useless organization - however, that doesn't invalidate the efforts of those serving for the UN, b/c they're not running the organization but are instead serving to their best abilities. Is it purely an emotional response here, then, too?

For instance - I think the UN is a corrupt organization in so many ways, showing favoritism to certain horrific regimes while virtually ignoring genocide in other parts of the world. I also think Arya is a great human for doing the work he has, in spite of the misguided UN hierarchy (I know he has expressed similar frustrations, as well).

Can't that carry over to the military side, as well?

[RACooper]

Originally posted by KSig RC
I get the friendly-fire side of things - I feel like that's a potential hot-button issue, and I can't really say there shouldn't be an emotional response to that. But the UN side of things - is that primary or secondary?


I personally feel that the UN is pretty much a useless organization - however, that doesn't invalidate the efforts of those serving for the UN, b/c they're not running the organization but are instead serving to their best abilities. Is it purely an emotional response here, then, too?

For instance - I think the UN is a corrupt organization in so many ways, showing favoritism to certain horrific regimes while virtually ignoring genocide in other parts of the world. I also think Arya is a great human for doing the work he has, in spite of the misguided UN hierarchy (I know he has expressed similar frustrations, as well).

Can't that carry over to the military side, as well?

The UN side of the issue is ummm - complicated...

Canada's foreign policy has always held to a track that being a responsible member of the global community, which man by extension see the UN as a physical representation of this community. Canada has for the most part strongly supported the UN, even when rulings didn't exactly fall in the country's favour - or motions are defeated in session. Finally Canada could be called the founders of Peacekeeping as it was a Canadian (and future PM at the time) that suggested the solution during the Suez Crisis, as well as being the first to commit troops to Peacekeeping... okay basic primer done.

Now part of the Canadian national identity is a strong identification with the good work the UN has done over the decades, despite being hampered by the politics of the Cold War or political grandstanding by different nations on different issues... the Canadian Armed Forces have an even stronger identification with the UN because of the commitment that has been made by the forces since the founding of the UN - even now the average soldier does around 3-4 tours with the UN as a Peacekeeper, observer, trainer, police, or even relief aid. So there is a tendancy to identify strongly with the concept of the UN as an important and vital extension of Canadian policies...

So with all this in mind now imagine an enviroment where the troops you serve with habitually insult or dismiss the UN as ineffectual, corrupt, unwanted, or a failure; in addition to seeing it on the US media made available over there. From talking to guys a lot of them took it personal... as they saw something believed in being under attack, as well as the sacrifices they have made. Now as for the comments about the military being frustrated by aspects of the UN... the common gripe that I heard was almost always leveled against the lack of US commitment (materially and politically) to the UN and how that undermined and overstreatched the orginization.

[Rudey]

My favorite UN work is their work on that conference on racism.

-Rudey

[Kevin]

RA, sorry to shift the scope of the argument here, however, I'm a little worried that foriegners feel that the US is wrong for not giving to an organization that seeks to weaken it. The US and all countries have a duty to first protect their own interests. Once those are taken care of, then perhaps the rest of the world's interests can be important as well.

The problem is, that recently, the UN has been remiss in its duty. It has become corrupt, unweildy and far too accepting of its member nations violating things like human rights.

It's no wonder countries like the US and Britain have opted for this go-it-alone strategy. They are accomplishing things while the UN sits on its hands and watches the people in Sudan being massacred.

[Rudey]

Why are we shifting topics?

Basically the Canadian military members are acting dishonorably and are treating their own soldiers badly.

-Rudey

[RACooper]

Originally posted by ktsnake
RA, sorry to shift the scope of the argument here, however, I'm a little worried that foriegners feel that the US is wrong for not giving to an organization that seeks to weaken it. The US and all countries have a duty to first protect their own interests. Once those are taken care of, then perhaps the rest of the world's interests can be important as well.

Hey no prob... and your arguement is one that I have heard alot from friends of mine in the US. Basically it boils down to the arguement of looking out for yourself or looking out for the community... remeber the old game-theory arguement in "A Beautiful Mind" where co-operation is ultimately more successful than confrontation or competition.

The problem is, that recently, the UN has been remiss in its duty. It has become corrupt, unweildy and far too accepting of its member nations violating things like human rights.

I agree that the UN has been hamstringed by nations advancing their domestic policies on an international scale... hopefully that can be corrected by some of the proposed changes to the security council - such as expanding it and eliminating the power of one member to veto any motion - making it more parlimentary basically. Hopefully that'll curtail some of the politcal abuse of the system...

It's no wonder countries like the US and Britain have opted for this go-it-alone strategy. They are accomplishing things while the UN sits on its hands and watches the people in Sudan being massacred.

Actually according to the policy papers leaked in the UK over the past year and half, the UK is concerned about the unilateral actions of the US as a destablizing factor in international politics - basically they hinted that Blair joined with Bush only to reign him in or keep the system from being completely upset... but again these were papers leaked by departments of the party and government not exactly friendly to Blair and/or Bush so take them with a grain of salt. However I tended to agree with the bent of the papers, in that it expressed concern that the actions of the US and UK in taking unilateral action could encourage other countries to do the same... a situation that was not considered desireable by the Foreign Office.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by Rudey
Why are we shifting topics?

Basically the Canadian military members are acting dishonorably and are treating their own soldiers badly.

-Rudey

Before you flippantly toss around term "dishonourably" in relation to members of the Canadian military.... cough, cough Abu-Gharib.... sorry but internal mess politics don't come close to "dishonourable"... perhaps disappointing or shameful, but definitely not "dishonourable".

[Rudey]

Originally posted by RACooper
Before you flippantly toss around term "dishonourably" in relation to members of the Canadian military.... cough, cough Abu-Gharib.... sorry but internal mess politics don't come close to "dishonourable"... perhaps disappointing or shameful, but definitely not "dishonourable".

Actually our military is handling that issue. So take some cough medicine or check into a hospice; it might be an std or something.

hon·or ( P )
n.
High respect, as that shown for special merit

They are definitely acting dishonorably. You're right though on one thing: we should add that these Canadian military members are acting dishonorably and in a disappointing, shameful manner.

-Rudey

[RACooper]

Originally posted by Rudey
They are definitely acting dishonorably. You're right though on one thing: we should add that these Canadian military members are acting dishonorably and in a disappointing, shameful manner.

-Rudey

They are only acting dishonourably if the investigation shows that the troops were acting out of some petty dislike of the relations with US troops... but if the investigation shows that there was something more behind the treatment of the snipers...

Now it is important to understand that in military culture snipers are not always accepted as one of the "boys" - their trade is viewed by some as too personal or intimate, a step above murder and not combat. Yes they are accepted as a great asset in the field, but not the guys you want to bunk with...

[Rudey]

Originally posted by RACooper
They are only acting dishonourably if the investigation shows that the troops were acting out of some petty dislike of the relations with US troops... but if the investigation shows that there was something more behind the treatment of the snipers...

Now it is important to understand that in military culture snipers are not always accepted as one of the "boys" - their trade is viewed by some as too personal or intimate, a step above murder and not combat. Yes they are accepted as a great asset in the field, but not the guys you want to bunk with...

I want to be a paratrooper.

-Rudey

[KillarneyRose]

Originally posted by Rudey
I want to be a paratrooper.

-Rudey

[hijack]
My daddy was a paratrooper - woo hoo 82nd Airborne!!!
[/hijack]


RA, could you explain what you mean by the Canadians abandoning Regimental traditions for American ones? I was just interested to know what sort of traditions.

[RACooper]

AS for paratroopers... um how do I put this... tried it, didn't like it... discovered I wasn't "touched" enough to hurl myself out of a perfectly functional aircraft into hostile fire.

Traditions... gave a lot of thought to this and I have discussed it before.
In the "Disgusted" thread which discussed the fratricide in 2002:
http://www.greeksource.com/gcforums/...ess#post447586

Right the Regiment is like your chapter, but with everything keyed up for rush/pledge period... the Regiment becomes everything. Each Regiment in the British system (which Canada uses) has a firmly established history that includes honours that you must live up to... additionally there is a motto (latin, greek, gaelic, or other), song (marching and parade), coat of arms, separate ceremonial uniform, mess (think chapter/bar/common room - but for Sgts, Officers, and other ranks), museum, badge, colours (flag that represents the honour of the Regiment), battle honours, honourary commander, an order of precedence (ie. which unit has privilege of place over others), shrines, even churches, and memorials at home and overseas, and even in some cases their own slang/language specific to the unit. Finally it is also important to never forget that all Canadians that have served in combat did so voluntarily, no conscription to fill the combat ranks.

For example the PPCLI or the Princess Patricia Canadian Light Infantry the unit in question… originally raised to fight in WW1, you had to be decorated to join. Now the unit has 38 Battle Honours (ones in capitals displayed on Colours) reaching back to the WW1 – other units reach back farther (such as the Queen’s York Rangers also called the 1st Americans – they remained a loyalist unit during the American Revolution):
First World War:
YPRES 1915, ‘17 (withstood first gas attack in WW1)
Arleux
FREZENBURG
Hill 70 (Vimy Ridge)
Bellewaaarde
PASSCHENDAELE (were a member of British command staff wept: “My God we sent men to fight in this)
MOUNT SORREL
AMIENS
Somme, 1916 (graveyard of the British Imperial Army – 60,000 casualties in one day)
SCARPE, 1918
FLERS-COURCELETTE (where both my great-grandfathers were wounded)
Hindenburg Line
Ancre Heights
Canal du Nord
Arras 1917-18
PURSUIT TO MONS (final campaign of WW1)
VIMY, 1917 (ridge that Canadian Army took after French and British repulsed)
FRANCE AND FLANDERS, 1914-1918
Second World War:
LANDING IN SICILY
RIMINI LINE
LEONFORTE
SAN FORTUNATO
Agria
Savio Bridgehead
Sicily, 1943
Naviglio Canal
THE MORO
FOSSO MUNIO
THE GULLY
Granarola
Liri Valley
Italy, 1943-1945
HITLER LINE
Apeldorn
GOTHIC LINE
NORTH-WEST EUROPE 1945
Korea
KOREA, 1950-1953
KAPYONG*

*Also a US Presidential Unit Citation, the only Canadian unit to every receive one.

Now every year the colours are paraded in front of the unit, and on the anniversary of each of the battle honours a gold wreath is placed on the staff supporting the colours, finally the ones in capitals are commemorated by a dinner for the Sgts or Officers messes. New recruits are constantly drilled with the history of these honours, and constantly reminded that they must live up to the tradition of honour the Regiment has. Additional tragedies or dishonours are also commemorated within the unit as well, whether it is the fact that a platoon displayed cowardice and that designation has been struck from the roster, or men were captured men were executed by the SS, or close to a company was wiped out by the US Airforce in a friendly fire incident in WW2, or now that more men were killed by US forces in Afghanistan than by the enemy… History is your constant companion within the Regiment, are you are constantly reminded of how you must strive to live up to the honours, and never forget the dishonours/tragedies.

Okay onto Mottoes or Badges… I’m sure you have seen the new beret with patch that the US Armed Forces currently wears… well the Canadians have had the same thing since before WW2, and each unit has a different “patch” on the beret (in addition to colour variations – Black for Navy & Armoured, Green other land forces, Maroon for Airborne, Red for Military Police – or Scottish headdress for Highland Regiments). However in each case the “patch” is actually a badge, think of an enlarged version of you GLO badge – it has symbolism and heraldry attached to it, as well as restrictions regarding your conduct while wearing it. Many Badges also sport the motto (or one of them) of the Regiment… in the case of the PPCLI they actually have no motto, which in its own way is a motto (as all the other Regiments do).

Now for Marches the PPCLI actually have a few “official” songs:
Regimental Quick Marches:
Has Anyone Seen the Colonel (lots of um interesting unofficial lyrics to this one)
Mademoiselle from Armantieres
and Tipperary
Regimental Slow March:
Lili Marlene
Battalion Marches:
1st – The Maple Leaf
2nd – March Winnipeg
3rd – Imperial Echoes

Finally there is the Victoria Cross winners… roughly equivalent to Medal of Honor winners, but somewhat more rare.
Lt. Hugh MacKenzie, VC, DCM
Sgt. George Harry Mullin, VC, MM
Sgt. Robert Spall, VC
Each has training grounds, barracks, and messes named after them, along with plaques again commemorating their deeds.

Now these are the official traditions and histories that are constantly before your eyes while serving in the Regiment… and just like any GLO there are also many unofficial or local ones (for units down to the size of Platoons in some cases)… and those are too many to list… and I can’t talk about many that I know


As a further example I’d encourage people to watch movies like “The Four Feathers” for a view of the strength that tradition and honour can play in the Regimental system. Also on TV today I was watching the SAS Tough Enough show on the History Channel… and the “instructors” punished recruits that were caught singing a US marching song with push-ups at mile 30 or so of a “long-drag” cross-country march…

Now the same thing goes for the snipers.. if they were caught dressing, talking (military terms), singing, performing drill, or "acting" (I know bad term.. but thats what's used) like "Americans" (or any other nation.. though British practices are somewhat forgiven up to a point) then they are seen as betraying the tradtions and histories listed earlier and official or unofficial reprecusions will follow.


PS> Keep in mind that all of the history and traditions listed earlier are specfic to one Regiment... the others have there own similar substantial collections.

[KillarneyRose]

That is very interesting; thanks for posting in such detail!

You know, I've always wondered exactly what was meant by a regimental tie and now I finally know!