By PETER WORTHINGTON, TORONTO SUN
Another Remembrance Day. Over the years, one thing that has remained constant in Canada is the nation's homage on Nov. 11 to those of its citizens who've died in wars. Apart from the six years of WWII in which 10% of Canada's population was in uniform, for most of the 85 years since the end of the First Great War, Remembrance Day was the only time much thought, even fleetingly, was given to the military.
In the last decade, this has been changing.
Maybe it's because veterans, so numerous in every walk of Canadian life after WWII, have steadily diminished to the point where anyone who was in WWII is now an endangered species.
The young men and women of past wars have grown old and somewhat exotic. WWII is ancient history, and those old gaffers with medals on their chests and moisture in their eyes on Nov. 11, are the last of their kind.
Fewer and fewer of those who served in WWI are alive -- a war more lethal and miserable than succeeding wars.
As far as I know, Ottawa columnist Doug Fisher and I are the only "working" journalists around who served in the military in WWII; I'm the only newspaper guy left who was in the Korean war.
As one who was once the youngest guy in the military, it feels odd being one of the dinosaurs.
As well as growing lethal missions for our soldiers today, the public's awareness of the military has been heightened by various 50th anniversary functions of past wars -- the Battle of Britain, D-Day, ending WWII, Korea, etc.
Realistic movies like Saving Private Ryan have made a generation of young people aware of what the old guys with blazers, medals and arthritic knees once did. Even so, it's difficult to equate the young men in WWII newsreels with the old gaffers in veterans parades.
The generation that once mocked and maligned the military during the Vietnam war, has itself become geriatric. Younger generations are more interested, even admiring, of what their predecessors did. Today's soldiers too.
When the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union imploded and the Cold War gave way to a series of smaller hot wars around the world, people's views about the military began to change.
There was a growing realization that "peace" plus "security" means having a competent military.
Incredibly, Canada went to war three times in the 1990s and (so far) once in the 21st century: The Gulf War, Somalia, Kosovo and Afghanistan, with Afghanistan producing the only battle casualties -- four killed by an American "friendly fire" bomb; two by a mine in Kabul.
The reason for so few casualties is that mostly our troops are kept out of action. Put bluntly, they do not have the weaponry or equipment to fight a real war, as Britain's Lt.-Gen. Sir Hew Pike opined in 1997, incurring wrath and denials from Canadian generals.
The 75-horsepower Iltis jeep is not a combat vehicle, but a glorified golf cart that breaks down easily; the Sea King helicopter is older than most soldiers; transport aircraft exist only for the governor-general and cronies; our new italian-designed truck -- LSVW -- is a calamity; politics demand military contracts go to Quebec; soldiers' families use food banks.
As well as a question of insufficient money for new equipment, it's a question of how existing money is spent. We could get new equipment dirt-cheap from the Americans if we were an ally, but we aren't. We're a "sovereign state" that America must protect.
As well as Canada getting a new, wheeled armoured vehicle -- the Stryker -- to replace the ancient Leopard tank, the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute urges increasing regular and reserve forces by 33%.
This won't happen, even though opinion polls repeatedly show Canadians want a small but substantial, well-equipped and trained military. The public also opposes the government short-changing the military, which often results in getting soldiers killed. Often, it's politicians who seem the military's greatest foe.
So while Canadians feel justifiable pride in what our fellow Canadians in uniform have done in war and peacekeeping, the government continues to betray her citizens in uniform, while mouthing platitudes and calling soldiers "heroes" when they are killed while using obsolete equipment.
It may sound trite, but Canadians are aware that the freedoms we in democracies enjoy, are because of those who went to war to defend against what was seen as a threat to liberty and security.
In this vein, it is fitting, this Remembrance Day, to recall the words of a U.S. Marine Corps padre, Dennis O'Brien:
"It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
"It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial.
"It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, serves under the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag."
:canada1
Another Remembrance Day. Over the years, one thing that has remained constant in Canada is the nation's homage on Nov. 11 to those of its citizens who've died in wars. Apart from the six years of WWII in which 10% of Canada's population was in uniform, for most of the 85 years since the end of the First Great War, Remembrance Day was the only time much thought, even fleetingly, was given to the military.
In the last decade, this has been changing.
Maybe it's because veterans, so numerous in every walk of Canadian life after WWII, have steadily diminished to the point where anyone who was in WWII is now an endangered species.
The young men and women of past wars have grown old and somewhat exotic. WWII is ancient history, and those old gaffers with medals on their chests and moisture in their eyes on Nov. 11, are the last of their kind.
Fewer and fewer of those who served in WWI are alive -- a war more lethal and miserable than succeeding wars.
As far as I know, Ottawa columnist Doug Fisher and I are the only "working" journalists around who served in the military in WWII; I'm the only newspaper guy left who was in the Korean war.
As one who was once the youngest guy in the military, it feels odd being one of the dinosaurs.
As well as growing lethal missions for our soldiers today, the public's awareness of the military has been heightened by various 50th anniversary functions of past wars -- the Battle of Britain, D-Day, ending WWII, Korea, etc.
Realistic movies like Saving Private Ryan have made a generation of young people aware of what the old guys with blazers, medals and arthritic knees once did. Even so, it's difficult to equate the young men in WWII newsreels with the old gaffers in veterans parades.
The generation that once mocked and maligned the military during the Vietnam war, has itself become geriatric. Younger generations are more interested, even admiring, of what their predecessors did. Today's soldiers too.
When the Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union imploded and the Cold War gave way to a series of smaller hot wars around the world, people's views about the military began to change.
There was a growing realization that "peace" plus "security" means having a competent military.
Incredibly, Canada went to war three times in the 1990s and (so far) once in the 21st century: The Gulf War, Somalia, Kosovo and Afghanistan, with Afghanistan producing the only battle casualties -- four killed by an American "friendly fire" bomb; two by a mine in Kabul.
The reason for so few casualties is that mostly our troops are kept out of action. Put bluntly, they do not have the weaponry or equipment to fight a real war, as Britain's Lt.-Gen. Sir Hew Pike opined in 1997, incurring wrath and denials from Canadian generals.
The 75-horsepower Iltis jeep is not a combat vehicle, but a glorified golf cart that breaks down easily; the Sea King helicopter is older than most soldiers; transport aircraft exist only for the governor-general and cronies; our new italian-designed truck -- LSVW -- is a calamity; politics demand military contracts go to Quebec; soldiers' families use food banks.
As well as a question of insufficient money for new equipment, it's a question of how existing money is spent. We could get new equipment dirt-cheap from the Americans if we were an ally, but we aren't. We're a "sovereign state" that America must protect.
As well as Canada getting a new, wheeled armoured vehicle -- the Stryker -- to replace the ancient Leopard tank, the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute urges increasing regular and reserve forces by 33%.
This won't happen, even though opinion polls repeatedly show Canadians want a small but substantial, well-equipped and trained military. The public also opposes the government short-changing the military, which often results in getting soldiers killed. Often, it's politicians who seem the military's greatest foe.
So while Canadians feel justifiable pride in what our fellow Canadians in uniform have done in war and peacekeeping, the government continues to betray her citizens in uniform, while mouthing platitudes and calling soldiers "heroes" when they are killed while using obsolete equipment.
It may sound trite, but Canadians are aware that the freedoms we in democracies enjoy, are because of those who went to war to defend against what was seen as a threat to liberty and security.
In this vein, it is fitting, this Remembrance Day, to recall the words of a U.S. Marine Corps padre, Dennis O'Brien:
"It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
"It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial.
"It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, serves under the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag."
:canada1
