One of the Department of National searching for Al-Qaeda and Taliban mem- Defence’s recruiting campaigns for the bers still hiding in the area. Canadian Forces contains the declaration One component of an effective military “Your Pride. Your Future. Your Move.” And team that is sometimes overlooked is support while each person who has made the deci- from back home. A strong team relies on sion to pursue a career in the military brings family members who take care of issues on to the job a particular sense of character and the home front, members of the public who a specific set of expectations, it is clear that provide national moral support, and the the fortune of the forces as a whole depends government, which formulates the long-term on the interaction and co-operation of people defence policy that shapes the overall struc- working as a group. ture of the forces. According to some mili- The importance of co-ordinated effort is tary analysts, the current Canadian Forces is clear among Canada’s troops who have at a disadvantage because of years of recently embarked on a mission under the underfunding. U.S.-led Task Force Rakkasan in Kandahar, Our forces in Kandahar have also had to Afghanistan. As soon as this latest assign- deal with a public debate about the appropri- ment was announced, preparations for the ateness of Canadian troops working in a operation intensified, from soldiers practising combat mission, especially under U.S. basic infantry skills and marksmanship to command. Some critics say that Canada’s personnel responsible for packing and trans- forces should be concentrating on a role as porting the troops’ gear. Each member of the autonomous peacekeepers rather than as forces, of course, has been trained to make U.S.-led fighters. A controversy over the the team run as smoothly as possible since treatment of Al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners his or her first day in the military. has underscored the debate. Other people Even with the best of preparations, how- assert that it is only by taking on tough ever, military missions are not easy combat roles that the Canadian Forces will endeavours. Some situations that soldiers build a strong team of peacekeepers. train to face can only be learned by living As this behind-the-scenes look at our through them. In Kandahar, for example, troops suggests, in spite of and because of the troops have to deal with poisonous snakes challenges, this Canadian contingent of the and spiders, a landmine-studded landscape, international forces is committed to working and a lack of amenities such as running water as a highly organized and effective team. and electricity. On top of all this, their main And, as career soldiers, these Canadian men concern is the accomplishment of their and women work to bring peace and stability duties, including patrolling the perimeter of to war-ravaged Afghanistan. the Kandahar base, clearing minefields, and

News in Review — 31 — March 2002 CANADA’S FORCES GO TO AFGHANISTAN A Unique Workplace

From the first day of basic training, each member of Canada’s troops develops a set of spe- cialized military skills that help the forces as a whole meet the demands of a variety of missions. Soldiers work on general safety skills, physical conditioning, topography exercises, survival techniques, and marksmanship, as well as other proficiencies. On a broader level, military planners work on long-range, large-scale policies to ensure that the forces are as efficient and effective as possible. Logistical planning involves the acquisition, maintenance, and supply of equipment as well as arrangements for transportation of troops and their gear. Strategic preparations involve long-term direction of forces and operations.

Organizational Skills and Prediction 1. As you watch this News in Review report, make a list of the different preparations that have gone into equipping the Canadian Forces’ mission in Kandahar. How are the different tasks of soldiering and logistics interrelated?

2. Based on the activities, proficiencies, and provisions described in this report, suggest what kind of strategic decisions would have been made by senior military personnel in order for the Canadian Forces to be ready for operations such as the one in Afghanistan. Military Reasoning Sun Tzu’s classic Art of War was written in China approximately 2500 years ago. Examine the excerpts below and suggest to what extent this information applies today. Make reference to information from the video.

Laying Plans: Now the general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat: how much more no calculation at all! It is by attention to this point that I can foresee who is likely to win or lose.

Attack by Stratagem: Now the general is the bulwark of the State; if the bulwark is complete at all points; the State will be strong; if the bulwark is defective, the State will be weak.

Tactical Dispositions: The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy.␣ .␣ .␣ . To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.␣ .␣ .␣ . Thus the good fighter is able to secure himself against defeat, but cannot make certain of defeating the enemy.

Follow-up Discussion People also read Sun Tzu’s Art of War for strategic advice in areas other than the military— for example, management, law, and sports. In your opinion, is there a correlation between military operations and these fields of endeavour?

March 2002 — 32 — News in Review CANADA’S FORCES GO TO AFGHANISTAN A Job to Do

No matter how prepared military forces may be, each campaign brings particular challenges that soldiers must learn to handle as they do their jobs. As you read the following material about the assignments of Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, think about how troops might prepare for each task ahead of time.

In early February, members of the Canadian Forces began arriving at the U.S. base on the dusty outskirts of Kandahar. The Canadians, mostly troops from the Third Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry (3PPCLI) and Lord Strathcona’s Horse (Royal Canadians), joined Jordanian and Norwegian forces working under the U.S.-led Task Force Rakkasan. Chief among the Canadians’ duties is the patrol of the perimeter of the Kandahar base. Other Canadian tasks may include demining the area around the base, maintaining security at the Kandahar airport, tracking down Taliban and Al-Qaeda holdouts, and, eventually, ensuring the safe delivery of humanitarian assistance.

Even as Canadian troops were still recovering from jet lag, they were apprised of the myriad trials and hazards of the mission. The possibility of face-to-face combat might be the most dangerous aspect of this operation, but it is by no means the only one. Some dangers, such as the threats posed by venomous snakes, spiders, and scorpions, are particular to the geography and wildlife of the area. Other menaces, like the landmines concealed throughout the terrain, are common features in many war-torn countries. Still other hazards are posed simply by the congregation of so many troops and their weapons. The accidental discharge of guns is a real concern where almost 4000 soldiers are gathered in one place. Finally, some hardships of the mission are more unpleasant than dangerous. For Canadians accustomed to running water, indoor plumbing, and electricity, the lack of these conveniences makes the situation all the more challenging. And Canadian commander Lieutenant-Colonel Pat Strogan advised his troops that their posting in Afghanistan would consist of intermittent periods of adrenaline- pumping activities and long periods of dull, hard work.

According to military sources, the Canadians’ main role in patrolling the Kandahar complex is centred on one particular piece of equipment, the Coyote reconnaissance vehicle. The Coyote’s cutting-edge technology, involving an amalgam of ground-based radar and thermal imaging, is capable of nighttime detection of people at a distance of 12 kilometres and vehicles at a distance of 20 kilometres. Not surprisingly, such a complex tool requires highly skilled operators to make the most of the technology. Although the Coyote’s system can spot relatively small objects in the distance, it takes the interpretation of a well-trained human to tell the difference between an approaching enemy soldier and other moving objects. The troops who operate each of the 12 Coyote vehicles in Kandahar are therefore crucial to their effectiveness.

Secret Missions While the Canadian government ensured that the prominent role of the Coyotes in the Kandahar operation was well publicized, it tries to keep attention away from the activities of

News in Review — 33 — March 2002 the elite commando unit known as Joint Task Force Two (JTF2). When The Globe and Mail unwittingly gained a major scoop by publishing an Associated Press photo of Al-Qaeda prisoners in the custody of soldiers identified as U.S. personnel but later revealed as members of JTF2, it was the first time a picture of soldiers from the secret unit had been published. The JTF2, who have had some 40 to 50 members in Afghanistan since the fall of 2001, have been involved in other missions with only minimal details leaking out. Because the JTF2 troops work in teams with other special forces thought to be from the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Norway, Germany, and Jordan, it is difficult to determine the exact involvement of Canadian commandos even if facts about a mission are revealed. It is believed that the JTF2 was involved in a January 28 shootout in which six Al-Qaeda members who had taken cover at a Kandahar hospital were killed.

In February 2002, Toronto Star reporter Mitch Potter was expelled from the Kandahar base by the U.S. military for allegedly transgressing guidelines on publication of information about certain aspects of the camp’s operation. Military authorities have explained that Potter should not have referred to the precise number of guard towers surrounding the area where detainees are held nor alluded to the activities of Joint Task Force Two. Potter, however, has maintained that nothing he wrote violated the rules as he understood them. He says he did not report any information that would endanger forces, and that other journalists have published more specific details about sensitive topics.

Follow-up Discussion 1. What are the obvious reasons for keeping information about military operations secret? Is it possible to be too secretive about troops’ activities? What are the advantages of keeping the public informed about military missions?

2. In your opinion, what limitations should be placed on journalists in military operations such as the one in which Canadian soldiers are involved in Afghani- stan?

March 2002 — 34 — News in Review CANADA’S FORCES GO TO AFGHANISTAN Peacekeepers at War

“The purpose of all war is ultimately peace.” — Saint Augustine

“Now that the United States has fought and won the war in Afghanistan, Washington and its allies face a task every bit as complex—winning the peace.” — Nancy E. Soderberg, The International Herald Tribune

War and peace are complex concepts whose definitions may be deceptively simple. What is the relationship of war to peace? Does the absence of one signify the presence of the other? Consider these questions as you read the following material.

A Combat Role Canadian troops in Afghanistan have joined a U.S. operation stationed in Kandahar as part of a larger campaign against terrorism. According to Minister of National Defence Art Eggleton, the operation is a combat mission that falls under a section of the UN Charter that authorizes “individual or collective self-defence” in response to hostilities against one of its members. In such a mission, troops are authorized to use whatever means necessary, including force, to achieve their goals. In Afghanistan, offensive action could be needed to capture members of the Taliban or Al-Qaeda still in the area. The operation, Canada’s first full combat mission since the Korean War in the early 1950s, appears to be a shift in the function of the Canadian Forces as an international peacekeeper.

Initially, it seemed that Canada would provide troops to an International Security Assistance Force operating in and around Kabul under British command. Canada’s emphasis on sending over one cohesive battalion, however, was incompatible with Britain’s request for an initial commitment of only 200 Canadian troops. While Canada maintained that a large unit already trained as a team would best deal with the many hazards of Afghanistan, Britain was more concerned with ensuring the involvement of various members of the European Union in the security force. To some observers, it appeared that Canada’s forces had been rejected by the Europeans, perhaps because they were not seen as battle-ready. When the Canadian government acceded to the request to send the Canadian battalion to join the separate U.S. mission in Kandahar, it emphasized that only highly skilled forces could take on such a role.

Some critics believe the government collaborated with the risky U.S. operation in part as a way of countering suggestions that the Canadian military has been debilitated by years of funding cuts. Others suggest that providing assistance to the U.S. military effort, especially when a United Nations-mandated international security force is also operating in the country, reflects badly on Canada’s reputation as a peacekeeping nation. But others say that a combat mission is actually essential to an effective performance of our peacekeeping duties. As Captain Jonathan Gallo, one of the Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry members who is taking part in the operation in Afghanistan, put it, “[T]he best peacekeepers are warriors. People don’t want to mess around with you if they know they’re going to get hurt bad.” And according to Sean M. Maloney, a historian at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario,

News in Review — 35 — March 2002 Canada’s peacekeeping missions will cease to have any significance if we are unwilling to also undertake demanding combat operations where troops might be sacrificed.

The Peacekeeping Vision Peacekeeping is not directly mentioned in the Charter of the United Nations. However, maintaining mutual harmony between different groups and protecting the rights of all humans were important goals in the establishment of the United Nations. The objectives of the organization are outlined in the Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations. Read the Preamble below carefully. In your opinion, is Canada’s participation in the war in Afghanistan consistent with the ideals of the UN?

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS CANADA’S FORCES GO TO AFGHANISTAN

The State of Canada’s Military When the U.S. launched its “war on terrorism” following the attacks of September 11, a new round of criticism of the alleged depleted state of the Canadian Forces began in Canada. Critics of a post-Cold War trend toward decreasing military spending said that budget cuts had left Canada entirely unprepared to go into battle in the war on terrorism. Prime Minister Chrétien countered these accusations by asserting that effective waging of modern warfare does not require more money but rather more creative thinking about military strategy. He declared that most individuals who wanted more cash pumped into the defence budget were pawns of the powerful military industry. When the U.S. asked the Canadian Forces to join Task Force Rakkasan, government officials pointed out that only a capable military would be invited to such a mission.

March 2002 — 36 — News in Review Still, certain problems that have befallen Canadian troops at the beginning of their Afghan mission have supported accusations that the military is seriously underfunded. For example, Canadian soldiers landed in Afghanistan with only forest-green uniforms to wear in a desert landscape that requires sand-coloured camouflage. Since the Canadian Forces recently sold its collection of desert camouflage and since new uniforms will not be available until summer, troops have taken to using paint and tape to develop makeshift desert uniforms. Other reports indicate that troops have had to borrow equipment from U.S. soldiers because Canadian troops arrived in Kandahar ahead of their gear. Lacking an appropriate means of transportation, the Canadians must rely on U.S. heavy transport planes to deliver supplies.

The Experts’ Opinions Two reports released to the public in 2001 do cast doubts on the Canadian military’s vitality. The University of Calgary’s Centre for Military and Strategic Studies released To Secure a Nation: The Case for a New Defence White Paper in November. A month later, the Auditor- General of Canada released the results of an audit conducted to ascertain whether major equipment platforms have received appropriate maintenance. Here are some highlights from each of the reports.

To Secure a Nation • The last major assessment of Canada’s military readiness, which took place in 1994, is now outdated. Another review should take place.

• There was a 30 per cent decline in real defence spending between 1993 and 1998. The defence budget should be increased immediately.

• Troops have been overworked. Many soldiers suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, exhaustion, and family difficulties. The Canadian Forces requires more troops, and more services and training for current troops.

• Canada has taken on too many UN peacekeeping missions, many of which have proved unsuccessful. Canada should focus on commitments to organizations such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in order to regain its military influence.

• Ottawa’s refusal to collaborate with the U.S. ballistic missile program could threaten the influence we do have in North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD). Canada should develop a policy on the ballistic missile program in order to maintain its role in NORAD.

• Canadian politicians have overemphasized Canadian military independence at the expense of co-operation with the United States. Canada should focus more on strategic partnerships with the U.S. while making sure we pull our own weight.

The Auditor-General’s Report • The Department of National Defence’s cuts to the readiness levels of Canadian Forces equipment have not been properly evaluated, since no system is in place to track readiness levels of equipment. The Department should set readiness standards against which equipment can be assessed.

News in Review — 37 — March 2002 • The Canadian Forces has a shortage of adequately qualified maintenance personnel. The recruiting campaign of the Department of National Defence should have a special focus on attracting equipment support personnel.

• Spare parts are not usually promptly delivered to deployed units because of a slow supply system. The Department of National Defence should review its supply process to make it as efficient as possible. Canadian Military Sovereignty “George Bush has declared the war on terrorism to be the cause of his generation. The cause of Canadian sovereignty will be ours.” — John Godfrey, Liberal Member of Parliament for Don Valley West

Follow-up Discussion 1. In your opinion, why has Canadian sovereignty become an issue in this debate?

2. Will Canada gain military strength by integrating its operations with those of the U.S.? Will it lose any real military power if we work too closely with the U.S.? Will we gain a better defence system under the U.S. but ultimately lose control of our forces?

March 2002 — 38 — News in Review CANADA’S FORCES GO TO AFGHANISTAN The POW Controversy

According to critics and Opposition members, at the end of January 2002, Minister of Na- tional Defence Art Eggleton misled Parliament about the role of Canadian soldiers in the apprehension of Afghan prisoners. Eggleton had to explain why he had given two different accounts of when he found out that troops had captured prisoners and clarify how long he had in fact waited before communicating the information to Prime Minister Chrétien. The circum- stances are important because of a public debate that was going on at the time about what action Canada should take with respect to the treatment of detainees by U.S. captors. Advo- cates of human rights argued that since the United States would not agree to grant captives the protections afforded to prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention, Canada should not hand over any captured enemy fighters to them. During that period, Chrétien reminded the country that such a discussion was only theoretical, since Canadian troops had not yet taken prisoners. As it turned out, that was incorrect. Here is a brief timeline of the situation.

Monday, January 21 In a classified mission, members of Canada’s elite Joint Task Force Two (JTF2) commando unit capture Afghan fighters. The captives are subsequently delivered into the custody of U.S. military personnel.

Tuesday, January 22 A photo of JTF2 soldiers herding prisoners away from a U.S. military airplane appears on the front page of The Globe and Mail. The troops are described as “U.S. military personnel.”

Monday, January 28 Prime Minister Jean Chrétien responds to media questions about Canada’s position on detainees by stating that the issue of prisoner handover is “a hypotheti- cal question.”

Tuesday, January 29 Prime Minister Chrétien tells the House of Commons that Minister of National Defence Eggleton has notified Cabinet that a Canadian handover of prisoners took place on January 21. Eggleton asserts that he first learned of the incident on Friday, January 25, when he saw the photo of the Canadian troops and their prisoners.

Wednesday, January 30 In response to questions from the Progressive Conservative Party and the media, Eggleton says that he found out about the JTF2’s capture of prisoners on Monday, January 21. He adds that the date he gave in his previous statement simply referred to the day he found out about the photograph of the troops.

Thursday, January 31 Members of Opposition parties in the House of Commons move that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs examine the issue to determine whether Eggleton knowingly misled the House of Commons and so might be found in con- tempt of Parliament.

Friday, February 1 The Speaker of the House of Commons announces that a formal inquiry will indeed take place into the allegations against Eggleton.

Tuesday, February 19 The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs begins its hearings.

News in Review — 39 — March 2002 Thursday, February 21 Eggleton appears before the committee and says that he did not lie to members of Parliament. He explains that he did not initially have the full details of the mission.

Tuesday, February 26 Chief of Defence Staff General Ray Henault and Vice-Admiral Greg Maddison testify at the inquiry. Maddison says that Eggleton was thoroughly briefed on January 21 about the activities of the Canadian special forces. The military officials suggest that Eggleton was confused about dates and facts that were relayed to him, and that he had to be reminded of the details of the initial briefing in subsequent reports.

Wednesday, February 27 In comments to the media, Eggleton contends that his testi- mony was corroborated by the statements made by Henault and Maddison. He also says that he understood all the briefings he received. Members of the Opposition have been united in their denunciation of the government in general and the Minister of National Defence in particular. Canadian Alliance defence critic Leon Benoit suggested there was negligence at some point along the chain of command, and said that either the military officials did not provide enough information to the Department of National Defence or the minister is not adequately committed to his job. New Democratic Party leader Alexa McDonough called for Eggleton’s resignation, asserting in the House of Commons that the minister is not capable of providing leadership for the military: “Canadians have lost confidence in the defence minister. Parliamentarians have lost confidence in the defence minister. Worse still, Canada’s military has lost confidence in the defence minister, from the front lines in Afghanistan to the most senior level of defence staff....”

The Geneva Convention The Eggleton controversy was not just about communication gaps in the military and the government. The larger issue was one of Canada’s role in the international community with respect to human rights. Canada’s handover of prisoners to the United States was contentious because of disparate interpretations of international law and different views on the treatment of other individuals, whatever crimes they may have committed.

At the centre of the debate about the treatment of detainees is a set of international laws known as the Geneva Conventions. These four treaties set out rules for war in an attempt to provide security and relief to victims of hostilities. Together, the laws of the Geneva Conven- tions provide the foundation for the International Committee of the Red Cross. It is the third Geneva treaty, the “Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War,” that pertains to the current situation involving captured Afghan fighters. According to the Convention, prisoners apprehended during conflicts are entitled to certain rights and privileges, including food, shelter, and medical care. They are also protected from being pressured for information. Additionally, the Convention requires that camps where prisoners are held be inspected by a neutral third party. Humanitarian and civil rights groups have insisted that the Bush administration follow the standards of the Geneva Convention in dealing with detainees. The U.S. government, however, asserts that its captives are not prisoners of war but rather “battlefield detainees” or “unlawful combatants” who do not fall under the Geneva rules. On the next page are excerpts from the section of the treaty that defines who should be considered a prisoner of war.

March 2002 — 40 — News in Review Article 4 A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. 3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. . . . 6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy sponta- neously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Article 5 Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

While U.S. government officials assert that their detainees are killers or terrorists who do not fit any description of prisoners of war, critics point out that the definition covers a wide range of fighters and that certain sections may be open to interpretation. Furthermore, organizations such as Amnesty International and the Red Cross point out that if there is any question about a prisoner’s status, he or she should be treated according to the guidelines of Article 5.

Commentators have suggested that one of the main reasons why the U.S. administration does not want to refer to its captives as prisoners of war is that it would thwart their efforts to conduct thorough interrogations for information on terrorist networks. But Red Cross officials say that the Geneva Convention does not preclude interrogation and prosecution of illegal activities undertaken outside of war. Part of the problem may be that the Geneva Conventions are outdated. Although Art Eggleton was again reproached by members of Parliament for suggesting that the Geneva treaties are obsolete, other people have made the same claim, noting that the laws were formulated not long after the Second World War, when methods of warfare and political considerations were vastly different from today. Still, it can be argued that the spirit of the Geneva Conventions—the commitment to fair treatment of even one’s enemy—holds today.

Discussion In your opinion, how might controversies like the ones described above affect the mission and morale of Canada’s troops in Afghanistan or in other parts of the world?

News in Review — 41 — March 2002 CANADA’S FORCES GO TO AFGHANISTAN Discussion, Research, and Essay Questions

1. Military historian Desmond Morton says in the preface to his book Military History of Canada that war has shaped the Canadian identity to a greater extent than most citizens of Canada realize. Research one specific conflict during the past two centuries in which Canada or the pre-Confederation colonies partici- pated. Write a paper discussing how the war contributed to forging the history of Canada. 2. Research the history of peacekeeping, and write a report outlining how its techniques have changed over the past 50 years. A useful place to begin your research is the Web site of United Nations Peacekeeping Operations at www.un.org/Depts/ dpko. 3. Read and write a report on a Canadian book in which war or its effects is a central theme. Examples are: The Wars, Famous Last Words, or You Went Away, by Timothy Findley; La Guerre, Yes Sir!, by Roch Carrier; The Draft Dodger, by Louis Caron; or Obasan, by Joy Kogawa. Are the issues raised in these books relevant to conflicts in which Canada is involved today? 4. Familiarize yourself with the Canadian Forces’ recruiting campaign. (Following September 11, an unprecedented number of people sought to join the Forces.) Visit www.recruiting.forces.ca or pay attention to advertisements on television and in print. Discuss as a class whether you find the campaign to be effective. What aspects of military life are highlighted? What facets of the experience would you emphasize if you had to develop a similar campaign? 5. Find out more about Canada’s war artists of the First and Second World Wars. Does such a genre still exist today? What is the function of war art? Write a paper on one of Canada’s war artists in which you discuss the role of art in war and war in art. 6. In 2002, the Ombudsman for the Department of National Defence and Canadian Forces released a report on the treatment of troops with post-traumatic stress disorder. Find out more about this condition and its occurrence in the Canadian Forces. A summary of the Ombudsman’s report can be found at www.ombudsman.dnd.ca. 7. In information prepared by the Canadian Forces to help people decide whether they are suited to the Forces lifestyle, the following qualities are listed as important: Dependability; Adaptability; Self-Discipline; Mental Stamina; Physical Endurance; Positive Attitude; Initiative; Willingness to Learn; Patience; Courage. In groups of two or three, discuss each of these qualities. How might they help a soldier perform his or her job? Share your thoughts with the rest of the class. 8. In 1997, then-minister of Defence Doug Young released a report on accountability and leadership in the Canadian Forces. Obtain and study “Canada’s Armed Forces: New Guidelines” in the May 1997 issue of News in Review. Suggest how Young’s report might have had an impact on Canada’s contribution to the operation in Afghanistan.

March 2002 — 42 — News in Review

Table of Contents