Talk:Canadian Airborne Regiment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Canada (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Was Somalia Affair a mere pretext for disbandment?[edit]

This is an Explanation of edit of the notion that Somalia Affair was but a pretext to disband the Canadian Airborne Regiment because 1994 White Paper had no need for it.

The "pretext" view is not generally held. Many (military and civilian) would hold that the Somalia Affair did irreparable damage to the reputation of Canada's military - to the point that the new war museum now has a gruesome painting of Sharone being tortured and killed at the hands of the Airborne. The disappearance of the Airborne helped mitigate that damage, but it has not been repaired. Somalia Affair was more than a simple pretext.

Other evidence that it was not a pretext is (1) the CDS objected in public to the minister's decision and (2) the airborne capability was maintained in the companies that were returned to their home regiments. (3) Finally, no references are given to support the argument that it was a mere pretext.

However, my edit goes along with the idea that other factors were also in play, including operational role and previous controversy (not the least being a study by General Hewson several years previously, the firing of the Airborne Commanding Officer who called Minister Danson an idiot, etc.) However, the "Somalia Affair" is generally viewed as being the breaking point.

I'll concede that the view that the Somalia Affair was not the sole cause of the CAR's disbandment is not as widely held as it should be. Nevertheless, no "embarassment", however poltically ugly or personal it may have gotten between the people involved would lead a government to discard a capability or organization that was deemed neccessary.
The 1994 White Paper calls for Land Force Command to provide up to a Brigade Group deployed or ready to be deployed indefinitely at any time, one battalion of which would serve as the vanguard or as part of NATO's Immediate Reaction Force. In practical terms, this means retaining a force structure of three Brigades. No mention of airborne capability is mentioned specifically, but it can be assumed that this forms an important part of a vanguard or rapid reaction force.
So here is the situation: the size of the military overall is being reduced, Land Force Command is being simplified into a symmetrical three-brigade structure, and airborne capability is desired within each infantry battalion of each brigade. The Minister's staff is looking for a way of breaking up the CAR and returning the companies to the battalions without having a messy confrontation with the regimental organization, and the Somalia Affair comes along and provides the opportunity to do just that. The Minister gives the Somalia Affair and disciplinary issues, rather than cost-cutting, as the primary reason for dropping CAR. The CDS naturally thinks that a relatively minor scandal (by the standard of other militaries) is a silly reason to disband a regiment and speaks his mind about it.
In any case, I'm happy with the text as it stands now. Just wanted to explain the argument. Geoff NoNick 18:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


Images would be nice here Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 18:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The Canadian Airborne RegimentCanadian Airborne Regiment — Request move for consistency and per WP:NCD. RJASE1 22:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing request per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force#Unit naming conventions and WP:NCD. RJASE1 02:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in support of the move[edit]

  1. Support perfectly in line with existing conventions. No need for "the" 205.157.110.11 22:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support I'm not sure why we're even surveying on this - the "The" should be dropped. Geoff NoNick 22:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I had originally marked it as an uncontroversial move (along with several other units in the same boat), but at least one of the administrators felt the move would be controversial because 'The' may be part of the official designation. RJASE1 22:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move[edit]

  1. Oppose: Some -- not all -- Canadian regimental names include the definite article in their names. The fact that not all do, and that some have had the article officially removed (e.g. Governor General's Horse Guards) indicates that the article should be retained for those regiments for whom it was retained. The conventions themselves state (with regard to keeping the definite articles) "This also extends to some non-musical groups, [emphasis mine] and even beyond "official" naming, for example The Invincibles (which is the nickname of several sports teams)." --SigPig |SEND - OVER 22:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Is the entry on the QOR nessesary? It seems that this inclusion misinforms the reader of the "capabilities" of the reserve regiment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.137.245.197 (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC).


Question[edit]

Agreed. This is wishful thinking. The QOR are not the Airborne Regiment. I'm fairly confident this can be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.114.118 (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Assessment[edit]

While there is a reasonable amount of material in this article, as of today it is very short on references and inline citations. As a result, I am rating it as Start class on the quality scale. PKT 18:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)