Supporting the troops means meaning it.

This just shouldn't be happening. At all. Ever.

A "fair number" of military reservists report problems with their bosses when they ask for a leave of absence, and many more cases go unreported, says a group that acts as a buffer between the reserves and the people who employ its members.

The Canadian Forces Liaison Council, which lobbies businesses and post-secondary institutions to extend military leave to reservists, says about 40 cases are brought to its attention each year in which reserve soldiers have disputes with their employers.

"There's still a fair number of reservists who are having problems," said Leo Desmarteau, the council's executive director.

"To put a number on it is very tricky because I don't know . . . I suspect there could be more."

Some reservists may be hesitant to ask the council to intervene on their behalf, Desmarteau said, out of a fear of a backlash from their employers.

"I'm sure that there are cases out there, situations where the individual . . . does not want to have the department, or Ottawa . . . intervening."

Which means that those who do volunteer to perform a full-time national service option get penalized.

It is not mandatory for the military's primary reserve force to deploy overseas, although Desmarteau said reservists are "strongly encouraged" to do so because the war in Afghanistan has put a strain on the number of deployable Canadian Forces personnel.

"The problem that we have is that there's been a surge in need for reservists in terms of numbers," Desmarteau said.

"There's no doubt that they're going to be asked to deploy on operations, whereas before, a few years ago . . . there was practically no question of being deployed on international operations."

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that would suggest, since the government has not declared an emergency, that the regular force is too small. While I had always maintained that reservists should be involved in contingency operations, even those of a deployed international nature, that is not their primary role. In fact, it isn't really their secondary role.

Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have passed laws requiring employers to keep jobs open for reservists who take military leave, but there is no federal law requiring other provinces to follow suit.

There have been talks between Ottawa and the provinces to decide on a single rule for military service that would apply everywhere, said Brig.-Gen. Linda Colwell, director general of the military's human resource policy and planning unit.

But forcing employers by law to take back employees is not an ideal solution, she added.

"We would far rather to continue to work through the liaison council and maintain the to-ing and fro-ing, the good relations that we have with most employers in Canada, rather than hit them on the head with legislation."

And it should be pointed out that most employers would recognize that a service member returning from an Afghanistan deployment or other full-time contingency operation, is probably going to be a much more developed individual. For what it's worth however, I have had a conversation with a business owner who objected to the idea of granting a "leave of absence" to an army reservist just so he could go off and "play cowboys and indians". (His words. Not mine.) Imagine my surprize when, after this encounter, I noticed the back of his truck had one of those nifty little magnetic ribbons emblazoned with "I support our troops" staring out at the world.

Fridge magnet/bumper-sticker support. But to actually make a sacrifice?

However, there are provisions in the Public Safety Act - drafted in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States - requiring employers to take back reservists called out in an emergency, defined as anything from an insurrection or riot to an invasion or all-out war.

Well, actually, that existed before Sept. 11, 2001, but why bring it up?

The truth is, if the Harper government really believed in and supported the troops, it would do more than play footsie with employers and businesses. Those that don't need to be hit over the head won't notice "returning service" legislation since they are already voluntarily compliant. Those who do need to be hit over the head need to be brought into line. Or would that piss of Harper's most secure constituency?

And then there is the irony of this incident:

Earlier this year, a New Brunswick reservist who had nominated his employer for an award for supporting the Canadian Forces made headlines when he quit his job at NB Power after the Crown corporation refused him a leave of absence to serve in Afghanistan.

It does not matter what position one takes on Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. The members of the regular force go where they're told, when they're told to go. Reservists have been given an opportunity to serve and should not be penalized for doing so.

This argument has been going on for decades. You'd think the Harperites, who claim to be so much more in favour with the military than any other political party in Canada might have addressed this problem early on in their government.

Makes you wonder what they're really all about, doesn't it?

H/T reader Cat

Memo to Stephen Harper on "The Troops"

Mr. Harper:

Pay attention. (That's military parlance for "Drop what you're doing. It's not as important as this.")

CBC is reporting that you consider a discussion of your bungled handing of Afghan detainee transfers something which is detracting from focusing on "the troops".

Canadian soldiers' heroism in Afghanistan is not getting the attention it deserves as members of Parliament spar over the handling of detainees, Prime Minister Stephen Harper says.

[...]

"Unfortunately, those soldiers' stories have been eclipsed by quarrels in the House of Commons with respect to allegations about detainees," said Harper, who joined Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor and Canada's chief of defence staff, Gen. Rick Hillier, at the rallies.

Well, Stephen, before we go too much further, go read this.

Then you said this.

"I sincerely hope their story will come to light when the Governor General officially gives them their decorations."

When have such awards not been thoroughly covered by the media? Your suggestion that something might change is disingenuous at best and completely dishonest at worst. Further, here's the Department of National Defence newsroom with up-to-date press releases. Point out the media releases identifying Canadian service personnel who have been recommended for an award.

Can't find any, can you.

That's because, Stephen, no information on the recommendation for an award is permitted to be made public until it has been confirmed by the Governor General. Her office issued a release on April 24th which was picked up by news organizations across the country, including a plethora of hometown publications. As that release was hitting the streets, your minister of national defence was issuing a release about a "new arrangement" regarding detainee transfers. Given the fact that you had ducked and weaved your way around this issue for the better part of ten days at that point, had changed your story several times and then changed the process, why do you think it odd that the major news organs of this country would focus more on the behaviour of your government?

If anyone stole the spotlight from the valour of our troops, it was you, sir!

Nevermind that, beyond identifying the names, ranks, geographic posting and the title of the award, there is almost no information offered until the presentation is made. Citations are not read out until the Governor General makes the presentation. The more comprehensive media story is available only once the presentations are made, and you know that. Notwithstanding some recipients were provided national coverage, despite your dishonest claim.

The heroism and valour of Canadian troops in Afghanistan will get as much coverage as it always has, and it will come at a time when there is enough information made available to present a proper story. Providing, of course, your government doesn't once again erupt in some stunning event, good or bad, which steals the attention of the media away from those who deserve it.

Your affinity to repeat the suggestion that people are "not supporting the troops" because they have a target lock on the way your government is dealing with Afghan detainees and subsequent transfers to Afghanistan government custody is, to put it bluntly, unmitigated bullshit.

None of it is about the troops. In fact, the issue surrounding the troops is that you and your government are putting them at risk by involving them in possible violations of the Geneva and Hague conventions and, worse, robbing them of the ability to believe they are serving Canadian values by treating captives humanely even if they surrender custody.

This isn't about the troops. It's about you.

And make no mistake about it, you are not, never have been, and never will be one of "the troops". You, Stephen, are a flat-faced, pencil-necked, forked-tongue politician. I would bet good money that, until you actually took office, you couldn't have recited the Canadian Forces rank structure, and I suspect you still don't know the difference between a dragoon and a guardsman.

This isn't about the troops. It's about Gordon O'Connor, who may go down in history as one of the most incompetent defence ministers Canada has ever known. He isn't one of the troops either. He too, is a flat-faced, pencil-necked, forked-tongue politician. The man didn't even understand the prisoner transfer agreement when it was first brought up. He has since wallowed around, rotating on his own thumb while you and his cabinet colleagues produced a different daily story about what you knew and when you might have known it. Have you ever wondered why O'Connor stalled at the rank of Brigadier General? Go on. Ask him. If the whole spectacle wasn't so pathetic it might make good comedy.

This isn't about the troops. This is about Rick Hillier, who is the most politically bent Chief of Defence Staff since J.V. Allard. While Hillier wears a uniform, his willingness to make political statements, which we all know have to be approved, makes him one of your home-boys, Stephen.

Canadians support the troops, Stephen. Those kids don't get to pick the mission; they do as they're told and go where they're sent. The making of policy is not their concern. They carry out the orders they receive. No one has a problem with them.

It's you. You make policy and you pick the mission. If you screw that up, it has nothing to do with the troops.

So, stop trying to hide behind them. They don't deserve to be used as a shield by a flat-faced, pencil-necked, forked-tongue politician.