The outgoing military ombudsman is criticizing Ottawa for failing to provide adequate support to families of fallen and injured soldiers, especially those with post-traumatic stress disorder.
In an exclusive interview with CBC News, Yves Côté said his office has dealt with many families who complain of too few answers after a death in Afghanistan or little help after loved ones return home with mental health problems.
"All too often, the system is just 'we'll come to you when we come to you'," Côté said. "Just take the time to show you have a heart as an organization and care about people."
Côté, who has served as ombudsman since 2005 and is now switching gears to become the associate deputy minister of justice, has condemned the military in the past for its relations with soldiers' families.
On Friday, his last day on the job, he said there has been little improvement.
"These people do suffer a lot, and sometimes they tend to be forgotten ... It is our high moral job to look after them and to make sure the right thing is done for them by the government of Canada," he said.
A former member of Canada's elite special operations force told CBC News that while he was serving in Afghanistan, his wife haggled with the military in a dispute over $30,000 in moving expenses.
Brian, who did not want to give his last name, said he returned from his mission and witnessed the toll it took on his wife.
"She had lost a bunch of weight; her skin was grey. She looked sick," he said. "I was making my wife sick because of my job and their lack of support."
He quit the military last July, citing family stress.
"It was the greatest job I've ever had," he said. "It was fantastic, but I love my wife more, and I'm not going to let them treat her like that."
Côté said Ottawa should make sure families are not ignored or lost in the system, as they are "paying a huge price as a result of their dear ones having served Canada in Afghanistan."
He said he is presenting recommendations on how to address such issues in two reports his office is preparing, to be released this spring.
No one from the department of national defence was available for comment.
To be frank, they were never good at it. But since the start of the Afghan mission and the return to grace of the Forces, people have been paying attention. And the military (especially the Army) have been frantically trying to make things look good while not addressing the root cause of the problem. Which for guys with mental health injuries lies with not getting them prompt and competant treatment. We're now looking at between 6-12 months to get assessed for PTSD, including time to get your doctor to get onboard with sending you in. Frequently people have to threaten to get their refusal to refer in writing before they will act.
The bit with the JTF guys wife is nothing new, that shit's been going on for years. In fact it's pretty much SOP, I had to go see my CO and demand that the Army reiemburse my family for flying out after I got hurt. Which the CO himself told me they would do. Took a year.
M1891/30: A bad day on the range is better then a good day at work.
I still remember the fuckup when the soldiers didn't get paid the 50 bucks a day they were promised for some training (and civilians did) and one officer came out and said he could live on a small barbeque chicken for a few days. One man lost a house because the army broke their promise. The answer was if they wanted to be treated like civilians, they could become one. What a joke.
In every conflict there are mental health issues. This is why war should be avoided in the first place, and there shouldn't be flimsy excuses to go to war. It's entirely possible that it's a choice between fucked up soldiers and soldier's families, and war. It's hard to blame the army themselves, since diagnosis of someone with mental health problems takes at least a month of close observation, and treatment even longer. There's also the issue of allocation of resources, not enough doctors and specialists. I doubt it's about bureaucracy and paperwork and red tape, because waiting lists like that happen for many other diseases. I far prefer to blame the politicians for sending soldiers to war without thinking in the first place. Treat the cause.
We basically got suckered into Afghanistan, with Germany and other NATO allies not pulling their weight.
brianeyci wrote:I still remember the fuckup when the soldiers didn't get paid the 50 bucks a day they were promised for some training (and civilians did) and one officer came out and said he could live on a small barbeque chicken for a few days. One man lost a house because the army broke their promise. The answer was if they wanted to be treated like civilians, they could become one. What a joke.
I remember that too. "If you don't like it, get out" is a common response to grievances. That whole issue was the result of a clerk fuckup and compounded by the Army refusing to admit they made a mistake. IIRC correctly that went to the original Ombudsman and he basically told the Army, "you fucked up, fix it".
In every conflict there are mental health issues. This is why war should be avoided in the first place, and there shouldn't be flimsy excuses to go to war. It's entirely possible that it's a choice between fucked up soldiers and soldier's families, and war. It's hard to blame the army themselves, since diagnosis of someone with mental health problems takes at least a month of close observation, and treatment even longer. There's also the issue of allocation of resources, not enough doctors and specialists. I doubt it's about bureaucracy and paperwork and red tape, because waiting lists like that happen for many other diseases. I far prefer to blame the politicians for sending soldiers to war without thinking in the first place. Treat the cause.
The thing is that as the military has it's own health care, so there's no excuse for extensive waiting. The wait times are a result of under funding, contracting out the hiring of doctors to a company called Callion (who got it because they low balled everyone else by bringing in garbage) and GP's refusing to refer their patients because in the words of one "everyone I refer comes back with PTSD, so I don't do it". A little bit of waiting time is acceptable. I waited about two months, from hinting around and finally demanding treatment before actual testing took place. That was in 2000, it's 2007 and things have gotten dramatically worse.
We basically got suckered into Afghanistan, with Germany and other NATO allies not pulling their weight.
I'll give you that.
M1891/30: A bad day on the range is better then a good day at work.
brianeyci wrote:We basically got suckered into Afghanistan, with Germany and other NATO allies not pulling their weight.
I'll give you that.
According to icasualties.org, Canada's military fatalities in Afghanistan exceed those of France, Germany, Italy, and Spain combined. We're only exceeded by the UK and of course, the US.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Darth Wong wrote:
According to icasualties.org, Canada's military fatalities in Afghanistan exceed those of France, Germany, Italy, and Spain combined. We're only exceeded by the UK and of course, the US.
We're at 73 now IIRC. I'm sure everyone is aware that the only nations engaged in combat ops in Afghanistan are the UK, US, The Netherlands and Canada. There's a few other small contingents running around from Romania and other countries from Eastern Europe but they don't amount to much.
M1891/30: A bad day on the range is better then a good day at work.
Darth Wong wrote:According to icasualties.org, Canada's military fatalities in Afghanistan exceed those of France, Germany, Italy, and Spain combined. We're only exceeded by the UK and of course, the US.
We're at 73 now IIRC. I'm sure everyone is aware that the only nations engaged in combat ops in Afghanistan are the UK, US, The Netherlands and Canada. There's a few other small contingents running around from Romania and other countries from Eastern Europe but they don't amount to much.
True; those figures include the entire campaign in Afghanistan, including the early going when more countries were active there. Many of the other countries on that list have fucked off and gone home.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Darth Wong wrote:
True; those figures include the entire campaign in Afghanistan, including the early going when more countries were active there. Many of the other countries on that list have fucked off and gone home.
Uk casualties have taken off. We were actually ahead of them for a while about six months ago. I think the Nordic countries save Finland have left and Italy was making noises about pulling out but I can't remember when that was.
M1891/30: A bad day on the range is better then a good day at work.
Croatia will be increasing its contingent from 180 to 300 this year. Not much, I know, but it still represents a rather large participation compared to the size of our forces, and especially considering the available equipment (which is being remedied thankfully). Additional units will probably become available with time (the goal is to have 40% of troops deployable in NATO operations by 2015. which should increase our participations to several thousands).
Netko wrote:Croatia will be increasing its contingent from 180 to 300 this year. Not much, I know, but it still represents a rather large participation compared to the size of our forces, and especially considering the available equipment (which is being remedied thankfully). Additional units will probably become available with time (the goal is to have 40% of troops deployable in NATO operations by 2015. which should increase our participations to several thousands).
Will they be doing anything, or just tooling around Kabul?
M1891/30: A bad day on the range is better then a good day at work.
Officially tooling around, however supposedly in-theather they have been assigned to combat and other missions in the more dangerous south - there had been several attacks on the troops and woundings down south (for example, a soldier near Kandahar was injured do to improper operation of a grenade launcher by his subordinate Afghani troops which he was instructing). The government is playing it very low key careful not to emphasise that the troops aren't being deployed with official limitations, despite them officially being assigned to safer missions - so in effect, they can and have been retasked once in-country. So, call it, based on the composition of the contingent (a large part are MP and medical troops), a part will probably remain in Kabul and neighbourhood, but some will probably be deployed south. If and when the first combat death occurs it will be an "interesting" discussion...
Netko wrote:Officially tooling around, however supposedly in-theather they have been assigned to combat and other missions in the more dangerous south - there had been several attacks on the troops and woundings down south (for example, a soldier near Kandahar was injured do to improper operation of a grenade launcher by his subordinate Afghani troops which he was instructing). The government is playing it very low key careful not to emphasise that the troops aren't being deployed with official limitations, despite them officially being assigned to safer missions - so in effect, they can and have been retasked once in-country. So, call it, based on the composition of the contingent (a large part are MP and medical troops), a part will probably remain in Kabul and neighbourhood, but some will probably be deployed south. If and when the first combat death occurs it will be an "interesting" discussion...
Even if they were just running aid convoys around the South without intentionally engaging in combat would be better than half the nations involvement. It still needs to be done after all.
M1891/30: A bad day on the range is better then a good day at work.
Darth Wong wrote:
True; those figures include the entire campaign in Afghanistan, including the early going when more countries were active there. Many of the other countries on that list have fucked off and gone home.
Uk casualties have taken off. We were actually ahead of them for a while about six months ago. I think the Nordic countries save Finland have left and Italy was making noises about pulling out but I can't remember when that was.
Nope, Sweden is still present in Afghanistan
("Ombudsman", one of the few Swedish words to make it on the international arena.)
It's sickening how callous military officials are towards those who do NOT have the rank of colonel or above. I'm reminded of horror stories regarding the VA's refusal to reevaluate disabled veterans.
Those gun nuts do not understand the meaning of "overkill," and will simply use weapon after weapon of mass destruction (WMD) until the monster is dead, or until they run out of weapons.
They have more WMD than there are monsters for us to fight. (More insanity here.)
Sidewinder wrote:It's sickening how callous military officials are towards those who do NOT have the rank of colonel or above. I'm reminded of horror stories regarding the VA's refusal to reevaluate disabled veterans.
Well it's worse in the US military from everything I've been told. But our VA has started to backslide since around April 2006 when they introduced the new Veterans Charter.
M1891/30: A bad day on the range is better then a good day at work.
Darth Wong wrote:
True; those figures include the entire campaign in Afghanistan, including the early going when more countries were active there. Many of the other countries on that list have fucked off and gone home.
Uk casualties have taken off. We were actually ahead of them for a while about six months ago. I think the Nordic countries save Finland have left and Italy was making noises about pulling out but I can't remember when that was.
None of the Scandinavian countries have pulled out.
Denmark pulled out of Iraq last year but we increased the contingent in Afghanistan to 665. A hefty sum for a small country of 5 million. The Danish forces are currently in the southern Helmand province doing combat operations under British command.
I still tip my hat to Canada and Holland for their contributions.
Darth Wong wrote:
According to icasualties.org, Canada's military fatalities in Afghanistan exceed those of France, Germany, Italy, and Spain combined. We're only exceeded by the UK and of course, the US.
We're at 73 now IIRC. I'm sure everyone is aware that the only nations engaged in combat ops in Afghanistan are the UK, US, The Netherlands and Canada. There's a few other small contingents running around from Romania and other countries from Eastern Europe but they don't amount to much.
We've had a VERY significant special forces force in the front line since day one, we just lost two of them over the last few months in big firefights with Taliban forces and we're not shying away from the 'hard' areas of the country, taking the crappy missions with far less support then the 'big' countries.
We have less people, but our military is already way overstretched with our international commitments. And the people we have in Afghanistan are the best of our best.
Darth Wong wrote:
According to icasualties.org, Canada's military fatalities in Afghanistan exceed those of France, Germany, Italy, and Spain combined. We're only exceeded by the UK and of course, the US.
We're at 73 now IIRC. I'm sure everyone is aware that the only nations engaged in combat ops in Afghanistan are the UK, US, The Netherlands and Canada. There's a few other small contingents running around from Romania and other countries from Eastern Europe but they don't amount to much.
Thanks to all those that pointed out who's doing what in Afghanistan. Although I have wondered if India has been approached to contribute. IIRC someone on the board mentioned that they had offered to send a division to Iraq if the mission was run by the UN. A div would be very helpful in Afghanistan, either adding to the combat capacity or by freeing up other countries forces to participate (if they can be convinced). Even if they just escort aid convoys or do reconstruction work, that's helpful.
M1891/30: A bad day on the range is better then a good day at work.
Wiki has a pretty detailed list of contributions. I have no idea about its preciseness - although now that I think about it, I can spot at least one omission - a very understandable one though. Albania is not mentioned as a contributor despite them being in a joint medical team with Croatia and Macedonia. The understandable part comes from their contribution to said team - a single doctor...
Also, a slight revision of my previous description of the Croatian participation. I was actually mistaken about the incident I used as an example (should have immediately gone to official sources rather then news) - the soldier mentioned (part of a HV OMLT team) was injured from an insurgent RPG while leading his Afghani trainees in a patrol (so yes, they do participate, at least to some degree indirectly, in combat operations down south).
Darth Wong wrote:
According to icasualties.org, Canada's military fatalities in Afghanistan exceed those of France, Germany, Italy, and Spain combined. We're only exceeded by the UK and of course, the US.
We're at 73 now IIRC. I'm sure everyone is aware that the only nations engaged in combat ops in Afghanistan are the UK, US, The Netherlands and Canada. There's a few other small contingents running around from Romania and other countries from Eastern Europe but they don't amount to much.
Australia is on the ground in combat ops too.
With a total of 4 military fatalities since 2001 according to icasualties.org, I can't imagine they've been a major presence.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Australia plans to nearly double its military deployment to Afghanistan, Prime Minister John Howard said Tuesday.
The Australian Defence Force will add the 400 troops to its contingent of 550 currently in Afghanistan by mid-2007. It will add another 50 by the middle of 2008, bringing the deployment to about 1,000 soldiers, Howard told reporters.
Howard, a staunch U.S. ally on the war on terrorism, would not rule out sending more than 1,000 troops should the need arise.
He said the troops will be sent to Oruzgan province, where a 200-member special forces task group operated for a year, through September.
"Their role will be to enhance provincial security by disrupting Taliban command and control supply routes and they will directly support the Australian reconstruction task force," he said.
Howard said there had been extensive discussions between the Australian defence chief and his counterparts in the United States, Britain and the Netherlands.
I know that they had Special Forces in theatre in 2001. Looking at the icasualties site out of the four losses, three are SpecOps soldiers and one is an armoured soldier. So the SAS and an armoured recce unit are there. Amongst others I imagine.
They are deployed to Orūzgān Province, which from what I can find, has seen moderate fighting. The Aussies may simply be lucky.
M1891/30: A bad day on the range is better then a good day at work.
