Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JDN who wrote (249862)	4/22/2002 5:12:41 PM
From: Neeka	Respond to of 769670

They ARE Americans. I think you meant brothers and sisters? M

To: JDN who wrote (249862)	4/23/2002 10:42:06 AM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 769670

O Canada! By PETER WORTHINGTON TORONTO -- The killing of four Canadian soldiers by a U.S. F-16 that mistakenly dropped a bomb on them has traumatized the nation. Flags are at half-mast, and citizens lined the highway to pay respects as the coffins were driven past. Various degrees of outrage and sorrow are being expressed that Canada's first deaths in the Afghan war were the result of American "friendly fire." [[Portrait]] The dead were from Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, one of Canada's proudest regiments -- the first to see action in both World Wars and Korea. I should declare my biases here. I was raised in a military family and, after enlisting in World War II as a naval air-gunner, served as an infantry officer with the "Princess Pats" in Korea. I feel out of step with my compatriots who are overly critical of America. I cannot think of any war where casualties from friendly fire haven't occurred. They even occur in training. They are every soldier's worst nightmare. Death by enemy action is seen as heroic; being killed by your own side is forlorn. Both are tragic, but the latter more so. Canada has gone overboard over this incident. The irony of the outpouring of grief is that the 100-plus Canadian soldiers who've been killed since Korea, in peacekeeping duties around the world, barely rated a mention in newspapers. Prime Minister Jean Chretien expressed the nation's grief in parliament and was seen holding back tears in the company of grieving relatives. Opposition leaders pitched in. Conservative Joe Clark implied that negligence in equipping the army properly might be a contributing factor, while socialist Alexa McDonough, of the New Democrats, expressed "rage" that Canadians were taken for granted by the U.S. The government has become almost pathologically anti-military. Mr. Chretien caused dismay last fall when the Princess Pats were initially designated to Afghanistan; he said that if fighting broke out, he might order them back home. He didn't seem aware that a soldier's primary role is to fight. After Sept. 11, military personnel in Ottawa were told to wear civvies, since uniforms might provoke terrorist acts. Military anger at seeking cover as civilians caused the order to be reversed. Mr. Chretien has appointed Gen. Maurice Baril, recently retired as top soldier, to head an inquiry into the friendly-fire incident, suggesting that a U.S. inquiry might not be as diligent in seeking answers. It's fair to say most Canadians were initially upset that President Bush only telephoned condolences to Mr. Chretien, and didn't speak publicly on the tragedy -- which he did a day later, to the relief of Canadians. "Nation's grief turns to Anger," headlined the Globe and Mail, adding that "many blame U.S. indifference to foreign troops." While polls show Canadians overwhelmingly want their troops involved in the war, the government and media think "peacekeeping" is the military's key role. Our peacekeeping heritage is stressed in schools -- not our reputation as formidable fighters in two World Wars and Korea. The army today numbers 20,000, the size of a World War II division. Yet Defence Minister Art Eggleton and top serving generals have insisted the military is more combat capable than at any time in the last decade -- a thesis refuted by every serving soldier who isn't a general, and every general who is retired. The deaths in Afghanistan have helped underline problems with outdated equipment. When the Liberals came to power in 1993, Mr. Chretien canceled a contract to replace Sea King helicopters with state-of-the-art E-101s. Today, the Sea Kings are older than most soldiers, and require 50 hours of maintenance for every hour in the air. In the Gulf War, Canada was first to join the U.S., but the army was too ill-equipped to do anything but garrison duty. Radio talk shows have seethed with opinions. Many accused the Air National Guard (to which the F-16 pilot belonged) of being ill-trained cowboys. The incident has fueled the rhetoric of pacifists and anti-U.S. nationalists who insist Canadian soldiers have no business in Afghanistan -- a view vigorously opposed by the military and general public. Curiously, the most understanding responses to the tragedy have come from families of the victims, and from soldiers themselves. They take the view that these things happen, and no amount of precautions can guarantee against accidents, misjudgment and miscommunication in war. It's a hazard of soldiering -- even in Canada's "no combat, peacekeeping only" army. Many Canadians, fed on anti-military opinion, will see their views reflected in these words of Linda Williamson, of the pro-military Toronto Sun: "Our idea of a soldier's sacrifice, to be blunt, is that he (or she) is in the military at all. We have come to understand military service as a job no one would want, a life of high stress and low pay, where the best you can hope for is to be sent somewhere to be shot at." A more depressing picture I cannot imagine. Mr. Worthington, the founding editor and, currently, a columnist, of the Toronto Sun, served in World War II and Korea. online.wsj.com