At no point did I say that our army is 'better than it has ever been', so you're arguing a strawman of your own construction. My exact words were "the situation facing the Canadian military today is better than it has been in decades", and I stand by that. I will agree with you on a single point- Somalia was most definitely a 'low point', but it was not the low point. It was early on in roughly a decade of time that formed a plateau of low capability and morale within the C.F.
The situation in 1993 is not indicative of the situation in 2010. Our current chief of defence staff and chief of land staff had not even commanded battalions yet. Most of our current battalion and brigade commanders were very junior officers. If you honestly think that you can take 1993 as a metric for the current state of our armed forces, you clearly have an ill-attuned ear to the ground on Canada's national defense.
Our military has undergone both literally and figuratively a generational change since the early 1990s. At that point in time we'd hit pretty close to rock bottom- a period colloquially known as the 'decade of darkness' where we were eviscerated materially by the peace dividend, had our public image shattered by Somalia, had many of our best take early retirement force reduction plans. We crawled out of that in the late '90s/early '00s. The wholesale change in military culture - particularly the culture of leadership has been more recent, with Afghanistan as the raw fuel and General Rick Hillier as the catalyst. His book 'A Soldier First' is excellent, and is essential to understanding the changes that have undergone the CF both materially and in our culture. I unreservedly state that our military is better focused and better equipped than it's been since the end of the Cold War, and that our leadership is significantly better than it has been since earlier still. I will reccomend that if you have an earnest interest in the modern Canadian military at all, that book should be at the top of your list. Leaving that, we will now get back to the subject at hand.
This seems to be the main thrust of your argument, most of the rest of it failing tests of reason or logic. That soldiers will be 'distracted' by the possible presence of gays or women in their midst.distractions
As I stated earlier, I've worked with a number of people I didn't like to a variety of reasons, each one in and of itself as distracting as any other thing might be. I sucked it up and dealt with it. The 'distractions' argument is fundamentally no more sound than, again, the argument raised against letting blacks into the military, and then into the combat units.
I'll tell you the same thing I would tell my soldiers: deal with it. If, while doing the job, you are unable to focus yourself on being a member of my infantry section for no better reason than the personal life of the person next to you, then you have no business in my team. We have soldiers deployed overseas facing impending divorces at home. Sick family members. Kids who are getting in trouble. Hell, friends getting killed from time to time during the length of their tour. Soldiers have proven themselves remarkably good at shoving distractions aside and carrying on. There are more than enough people capable of doing so that if someone can't, tough cookies for them. A soldier who cannot compartmentalize themselves enough while on the job to focus wholly and solely on the mission at hand, the commander's intent, and the bigger picture within which he fits frankly lacks, in my opinion, the emotional maturity to be worth the risk. A soldier who cannot focus on their job is a liability. Shall I kick the black guy out of my section because my closet racist finds him 'distracting' or unpleasant to be around? No. So why would I any more cater to homophobes?
You ask 'What defines the ability to do the job'?
You have abundant experience in the combat arms as part of a small unit and as a leader. You don't need to ask me that- but since you have, I'd say some things such as the ability to carry and fire a rifle or other small arm accurately, to respond calmly and decisively under stress, to carry a heavy load on bad ground in crappy weather, to communicate clearly and proactively, to navigate by day or night, to know the job of the man or woman beside you, to know, as best as you're able, the job of the next two people in the chain of command, to maintain and employ your weapons with a great degree of speed or skill, to exercise sound judgement ('strategic corporal'), to appreciate to some extent the myriad factors influencing contemporary operations (cultural, religious, etc), to be possessed of a high degree of physical fitness and motivation, to be willing to take over and lead when your boss goes down... I could go on, but I think you get the point.
I see not one of these that inherently excludes any human being motivated to serve who is possessed of normal physical and intellectual abilities, and somewhat above normal drive to serve their country.
There is frequent talk from your side of this debate about 'distraction' and 'cohesion', but it's always relying on a select number of quotes or anecdotes form a small number of high ranks who've weighed in on the subject. I contrast this with discussions I've had with other people on other sites, currently or recently serving NCOs or officers. The prevailing opinion I see is 'whatever'. Most of those I speak to on this - Americans included - care much more about their soldiers accomplishing the mission.
As I've said, perhaps it's a generational thing. I'm 24. More people my age just don't seem to care if someone's gay, and as we're increasingly fleshing out the ranks of the military, perhaps it's inevitable. Military composition typically lags but does track social trends. But at the end of the day, I have a section of soldiers to lead and command, and any soldier who can meet my expectations and contribute to the accomplishment of the mission has a place in my section.
Bookmarks