Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Barney's Tavern is a corner booth for people who care about this country.
Chris LaBossiere sits down with thoughtful, interesting Canadians — and take the time real ideas deserve. Generals. Entrepreneurs. Policymakers. Artists. Creatives. Builders. People shaping Canada in visible and invisible ways.
The goal isn't debate. It isn't performance. It's curiosity.
Welcome to Barney's Tavern, and let me properly introduce today's guest. Lieutenant general Omar Lavoy, CMM, MSC, CD. He retired in 2021 after thirty eight years of service to the Canadian Armed Forces. He started as a private soldier in 1983, rifle platoon commander during the Oka crisis in 1990, a battle group operations officer in Kosovo, and in 2006, commanding officer of the RCR battle group in Kandahar, Afghanistan, Operation Medusa, the most intense sustained combat Canadian troops have faced since the Korean War. His meritorious service cross citation notes that he led from the front, sharing the dangers and harsh conditions, harsh living conditions of his troops.
Chris:General Lavoy, it's an honor to have you here. Thank you for joining me.
Omer:Yeah. Great to be here. Thanks very much for having me as well.
Chris:Excellent. Let's start with a moment that you've lived to T90, Oka, Quebec, A 19 year old Canadian soldier, Private Patrick Kluche of the Royal twenty second regiment stands face to face with Brad Larocque, an Ojibwe warrior and University of Saskatchewan economic student. Cameras everywhere, tensions everywhere. One wrong move and people die. This photograph became iconic.
Chris:You were there, rifle platoon commander, seventy eight day standoff with seemingly no clear enemy and no clear win. General, what did you see that this photograph didn't capture that day?
Omer:Well, I think what it doesn't capture, definitely shows the defiance and the professional sense of duty, I guess, to what we do as soldiers, but what you don't see, of course, is what that soldier's actually thinking and trying to probably tally in his head all the things at that moment that could possibly go wrong. I think what you don't see for sure, I've seen in my soldiers in that same deployment is the incredible amount of restraint that our soldiers then and in many other deployments demonstrated even though you're in that situation, you're going through all the algorithms of the what ifs and what nots that could possibly happen and you don't know in thirty seconds from now you're gonna be doing something fairly kinetic instead of just standing there holding your ground.
Chris:Well, that's what this conversation's about today. What happens behind the photographs, behind the ceremonies and behind the heroic images? This is Barney's Tavern, a museum tavern in my garage named after my grandfather who served in the second World War. I'm Chris Lavoyer, and this is a conversation about what it truly costs to serve. General, before we go further, who were you in 1990?
Chris:Who was the young officer in the ground at OCA?
Omer:Yeah. So at that point in time, I'd been fresh almost out of military college, so that time, I guess, about 23 years old or so almost a brand new platoon commander being thrown onto that deployment, you're still really trying to figure out your job. You're to figure out what it is actually to be an infantry officer and the ins and outs of being a platoon commander. And you're trying to do that in what we were trained to do, which at that time was just at the end of the Cold War, we're still trained to fight the Soviets and then eventually Russians. So you're trying to learn all of that stuff as a junior officer and then you're thrown into this situation which is complete anomaly.
Omer:That's not something that's hardly even touched upon when you're doing your basic training at that time. So it was a huge change in gears and a huge change of approach of what you thought you were gonna be doing as a brand new second lieutenant or lieutenant trying to learn the notes being a platoon commander and now you're thrown into this sort of situation which is completely divorced from that. And along with one of our soldiers almost starting from scratch in terms of learning the ins and outs now in terms of what it takes to assist law enforcement during table as a civil unrest, learning how to do crowd control and whatnot, which are not things that are core to our mission over the training.
Chris:I know the photo captures one second of a moment of a seventy eight day operation. What was actually happening on the ground at OCA that the Canadians never saw?
Omer:Well, I think the biggest thing when I think about that operation, and the first thing I'll say is that it's probably, it's certainly not my most favorite, in fact, it was my most unfavorite deployment, and it hasn't happened since then in terms of Canadian Armed Forces having to conduct law enforcement operations like that for a whole bunch of reasons, mostly because it's just not something that Canada is really, when you think about countries where the military is used to police their own citizens, Canada is one of the countries that would come to the forefront of those. Right. And for, for Canadians, especially for members of the CAF, it's something very distasteful to have to do. It's something that, it's there, sits in the background, it's always a possibility, but it's always something that should be the approach of last resort, absolutely. When I fast forward twenty something years past that, I could direct to the strategic joint staff as a major general, and we would get requests all the time to sometimes consider doing those type of operations, and my advice always to the chief of defense staff or others was, you know, we should not go down this road unless it's absolutely necessary.
Omer:I think to get back to your question of what Canadians didn't see in that operation or didn't probably know is what the soldiers were really brought there to do in the first place and asked to do and it wasn't to sit there for seventy eight days and essentially act as policemen on the various First Nations communities are tasked to go there. While we were called was that the police at the time thought they were outgunned in terms of the weapons that the warriors, the Mohawks were believed to have in their possession and because of that, the police felt they needed essentially the firepower, the combat power that the Army would bring to it. So our mandate and what we trained to do wasn't aid to civil authorities in that venue but was to take down the barricades. So the battle group that I belonged to, which was the second battalion of the Royal Canadian regiment, we trained for probably two weeks in Gaugetown specifically to take down and neutralize the barriers that were on the Shadowgate Bridge. The plan initially was we would show up, we would do that one way or the other, and then hand it back to the police.
Omer:That part happened. We accomplished that part of the mission very early on, but then it was decided for a whole bunch of reasons that we needed to stay on the inside perimeter on the First Nations communities and continue to to police them.
Chris:I I was really I mean, it's an iconic photo, and living out. You know, certainly old enough to remember the moment and at probably the exact same age as that soldier. Actually, I was probably 20 at the time. How do you keep soldiers? And obviously, most of them very young, steady in that kind of sustained ambiguous tension?
Chris:And there's no clear enemy. There's kind of no clear resolution and every decision carries risk with almost no upside. I'm just curious how as a leader, you know, how do you train a soldier for that rigid discipline they need in that moment?
Omer:Well, I think as I said, our training when we started to switch over to essentially acting as police, which involved a lot of crowd control and going to and addressing riots that were happening across some of those First Nation communities. So our training from that perspective was fairly minimal and really hasty. Most of that training we actually did in Quebec after we deployed. But I think the answer to that just goes back to the couple of things. One is the incredible amount of training that Canadian soldiers receive.
Omer:Having had soldiers from multiple countries under my command during operations as a deputy commander in NATO, I would say that there's still no soldier in the world that's trained as well as a Canadian soldier, so dig at that piece. I think the second part to that question is the cascading nature of leadership. So yeah, he was a young private soldier with probably a year in the Army. But in our hierarchy, there's a section commander behind him who's a master corporal who probably had five, six, seven years in the army. Behind him is sergeant, ten, fifteen years in the army.
Omer:And it goes up from there. So while the picture shows that that soldier looks like he's on his own, he's certainly not because there's a whole bunch of leadership backing him up as well as his buddies as well. And then I think the third and fourth answer, part of that question is, one, it comes down to being we're a professional military, so we're not a client's script, Barney. Haven't been for a long, long, long time. So there's a professional nature that every soldier, officer, NCO who was there, they're there through their own volition and volunteered to join and serve.
Omer:Going hand in hand with that is the Canadian values. Canadian values, I think, just allow for the most part we have restraint, we have the professionalism. In the end, if you're in the Canadian Armed Forces, you're there to defend Canadians regardless of what side of the line they have to be on in that case there in Oakville.
Chris:I want to shift gears and now start to drive into the kind of personal cost of some of this. I think that's the theme I'd like to discuss. And so Patrick Couche, private of that photo, the image made him famous. No doubt he kind of became the face of the cane soldier calm, professional, unshakable, all true in the moment. In one of the most tense domestic standoffs the country's ever seen really.
Chris:Then he struggled. Disciplined problems eventually discharged. I don't think Canada abandoned Patrick Cluchey. Maybe these are my thoughts. I'd love your opinions on it.
Chris:I think we did something almost worse. We kind of turned a frightened young soldier into a national symbol, and then held them to the standard of the symbol. And he was 19 years old at the time, I believe. And you know, the photograph didn't show that. The country didn't necessarily know that.
Chris:And you were commanding that environment. You know, when a soldier becomes an icon when he's still in the field, it's maybe not that irregular occurrence, but what does that possibly do to them more? Maybe what responsibility does the institution carry for what comes after that?
Omer:Yeah. I don't know him personally. I know a bit about his story, but I can certainly relate that to what I saw specifically in Afghanistan with my soldiers who were put in that sort of same situation, I guess, elevated up into a podium that they never really asked to be standing behind. Sadly, if I just look at my own battle group as an example, Not exactly the same situation but a lot of the soldiers that I had who were the most decorated, so I'm talking soldiers who received Medal of Military Valor and Stars of Military Valor, just second behind Victoria Cross. Unfortunately, for many of them, their lives post Afghanistan often did not turn out the way I think they hoped or we would have hoped they would have happened.
Omer:And there's a couple reasons for that. Mean, one, there is all of a sudden this huge spotlight that is shown upon you when you're a winner of a medal of valor or star of military valor. But the other piece of that, and I think it probably relates to the soldier as well, is that you got to look back at, okay, and scratch the surface in terms of, well, why did that soldier win that Star of Military Valor or that Medal of Military Valor or a military service class or what have you. And you just have to look at the citations of which I've written many. Again, yeah, those things weren't given out lightly and for those soldiers to have been awarded that and to receive that, they were in some very dangerous, violent episodes when they did whatever it was they did to warrant them to be awarded that.
Omer:So when you look at that, it's not a surprise then to see years later many of these disorders now manifesting post traumatic stress disorder based on, put it a little bit about maybe the fame that they've already all of a sudden experienced, but I think more to the point is going back to that actual moment in time in battle or on operations that that was the reason for them receiving those awards in the first place. You look at that and then it's not surprising to see what these soldiers did achieve, but most importantly, what they sacrificed to win that. And then you can understand going years forward, how it can often manifest itself into psychological injuries like post traumatic stress.
Chris:I'd like to I'm gonna shift gears and I wanna show you something. We're going back now January, so a long way back. One of the things that I have is this memorial cross of a private, Stephen McDermott Fowles from the first world war. And he's it's noted in a sense is it Paul? It's, you know, it's the memorial cross, of course, you know, Fowles was from, Roblin, Manitoba.
Chris:He volunteered to serve Canada in the first world war. He was 20 years old, six dates, six days short of his 20 birthday when Canada executed him by firing squad. His sister Ruth Duncan, and this is just from my research, was 98 years old when a newspaper photographed her in 2000 and she's holding his photograph. And it's the same one that I have here. She'd spent most of her life not speaking of what happened to her brother.
Chris:Her granddaughter said it was a terrible shame. We didn't talk about it much. It wasn't until much later that we realized he was just late from a visit to see his girlfriend, and they shot him for that. The court martial documents were kept secret by the British government till nineteen ninety three, seventy five years later. And so the family kind of had that shame, guess.
Chris:They weren't even really fully allowed to understand. And so Fowles was not alone. In my research, 25 Canadian soldiers were executed by their own side. And, during the first World War, 22 for desertion and one for cowardice. The institution kind of kept sending him back to the trenches until something broke entirely, and and then and then it executed him.
Chris:Australia executed no one, for desertion. Their reasoning was every soldier was a volunteer and none would be shot because their courage ran out under fire. And you know, Canada did not share that view. And you know, I guess what, you know, I'm really I'm really curious in in the sense, and there was a great there was a great political debate about this in, in in the media, in in around 2000, about about pardoning these soldiers. The Brits did.
Chris:And, and Canada didn't. They did add them to the, book of remembrance. And so, you know, these are very interesting debates and they're certainly, you know, difficult in the sense that, the, the, you know, the to judge any action at the time it happened is much harder to do in a modern sense when you have a full understanding, I guess, of the things that are happening now. And, you know, curious your thoughts on what we might do different today in those situations and what have we learned from that situation and how do you balance the tension of discipline and you know, using the capacity the and knowledge we have now to understand the situation might be quite different in terms of a mental health context in a soldier.
Omer:So how long do we have here?
Chris:Well, know it's a tough question, but I'm really curious what kind of where we are now as Canadians.
Omer:Well, it's your coincidence. Well, in military college, I wrote a 50,000 word thesis on post traumatic stress disorder, which it wasn't called at that time. Was called Something Different. So I have a bit of a academic background with that, but a little bit of personal experience as well in terms of command. So I mean, I'll say the first thing I'd say upfront is what we did back in World War I and previous to that is truly a tragedy, I think, in the Shakespearean sense where you have these brave soldiers who are, as you mentioned, volunteered to fight and serve their country at that time.
Omer:And it wasn't that long ago that the death penalty for those type of offenses was still on the books. So when I joined the military, like, in '83, the Canadian forces still had the death penalty even though Canada didn't have it, obviously, for a long time, then eventually we got rid of it rightfully so. So knowing what we know now in terms of what would have been the ideology in terms of desertion or was described as cowardice or which eventually then became known as shell shock and then critical incident combat stress and then eventually what we call it now post traumatic stress disorder. But at that time it just wasn't known. It was called different things or for various reasons it was seen as being an offense under the quota service discipline and that was what the sentence for it was in some cases.
Omer:So fast forward to where we are now, we've learned in an ordinary amount about what psychological injuries look like and how you address them on the battlefield. Thankfully it's not with a firing squad. I think going back to my academic experience in that, and I'm the farthest thing ever from being a psychologist, but going into Afghanistan on combat operations, at least I had enough of the background to set a command culture where it was clear to my subordinates that when we went to Afghanistan, an injury was an injury was an injury, it was an injury regardless whether or not it was physical or psychological. That I think is where we are at now, at least when I left the CAT in terms of our understanding of that and how we set those command climates. I guess by way of war stories or to be illustrative of that is that, and again, speaks to the incredible professionalism of our soldiers, professional in our soldiers, from my recollection of Afghanistan, there was only one case where I had a soldier who was derelict of duty based on experiencing a critical convolution like that during one of our really bad days and had had that conversation with my regimental sergeant major in terms of, you know, should we charge the soldier or not.
Omer:Not gonna mention names. And in the end, the conversation with my regional sergeant major was, no, we're not gonna charge them. In this case, the soldier actually was wounded. And my take was that he's being sent back to Canada anyways because his wounds were egregious enough that it warranted that, but the mindset that him and I both agreed on, it was that the soldier, he served his country. Yeah, he may have run out of fuel just after getting onto the objective, but going with that sort of same mindset of an injury is an injury and the kind of climate that I was trying to set within the battle group, it would have been disingenuous to say that.
Omer:Then the first time it happens, charge the guy and send him off the military. So we chose not to do that and think the soldiers knew that and we didn't hide that for good reason because that was a command climate that we're trying to establish. Now clearly society and the military catch specifically have come a long, long ways from when I joined, PTSD didn't even exist. It wasn't even in the psychological diagnostic DSM models to where now it's very much a part of deploying on an operation and while you're on the operation and post operation is all of the checks and balances from a mental health perspective that we now have in place. Then with that for soldiers who need it, hopefully they get to care while they're still in uniform or afterwards from being on those type of operations.
Omer:Of course, prevents it completely. As you all know, I think on our tour, I had over one hundred soldiers so wounded physically, but as time goes on, those numbers are probably two or three times that from the psychological wounds that soldiers are harboring and obviously manifesting them quite latently.
Chris:Clearly, there's an effort in both our military and paramilitary and police first responder communities. It's another kind of pandemic, it seems. And so, I think it's just an interesting contrast. I'd like to now bring ourselves to yesterday. This will be a little bit of a different angle, but you know, everything we're kind of talking about happens here within a framework in terms of like rules of engagement, international law, the laws of armed conflict, conflict, you know, soldiers' obligation to refuse an unlawful order is not just a right under international law, as I understand it, and most military doctrines, including Canada's, it is a legal duty.
Chris:That framework is under pressure right now down south and now in ways that feel genuinely unprecedented again. If The United States Secretary of Defense publicly declared that enemies in the current conflict will receive no quarter, legal scholars, military analysts, the Rome Statue of International Criminal Court are unambiguous, declaring no quarters a war crime prohibited in international law since The Hague Convention of 1899. It is in the United States military's own doctrine. When the civilian leadership giving the orders, publicly announces an intent that violates violates the laws that those soldiers are sworn to uphold. And I'd love your perspective as a leader, but as a also that frontline junior soldier and enlisted or, you know, new young soldier, you know, what's the professional soldiers obligation and what do you do with that?
Chris:And I'm really curious about that. It seems like a kind of moral shift, particularly amongst one of our major military allies, you know, where that itself seems strangely tested. What's your perspective on that if you'd share?
Omer:Well, I have a whole lot of bunch of thoughts, I guess, when it comes to what's we're seeing from our closest ally, and most of it is disbelief. And it's one of these things where you gotta be careful because karma's a bitch. And if you profess that on the one hand, you're not gonna be obliged through rules of engagement and all of the parameters involved law of armed conflict and the conventions that we're signatories to, then you obviously open yourself wide open so that whoever the adversary is that you're facing could choose to do the same thing against your own soldiers or against your own civilians depending on what kind of conflict it You know, from a I guess I just wanna say, I would say that I would not wanna be the American chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Tavern right now because I would only hope that when he hears what comes out of the sack, death's mouth that he must cringe, assume. I But at the same time, easy for me to say because I'm no longer in uniform, but I would say that there is definitely an obligation on the part of the senior leadership who are still in uniform to address it.
Omer:I mean, it's your, as you mentioned, it's pretty well your moral obligation to address that. Now, I think clearly that counts as some big consequences for sure but
Chris:does it do to the force, like the Say fighting force
Omer:again?
Chris:I'm curious, kind of fighting force itself, the men and women in the institution, when that mandate kind of erodes from the top, does it do to that? I'm sure that's a tough dynamic to navigate as a leader. Write down
Omer:what Well, think what it does is it erodes coherence and it puts uniform leadership in a really tough space where as members of the military in uniform, it's very clear, your obligations in terms of not obeying unlawful orders and obeying all of the tenets of law of armed conflict and international law. And then to have a member, a civilian member of the executive say things to the contrary, it would put senior leadership, I think leadership at all levels, in a really difficult position because you've got, especially nowadays where young soldiers, they're seeing the same thing on Fox News that we're seeing and that senior leadership would be seeing and it's gotta put, you know, it's gotta cause soldiers to question their leadership in terms of, well, you know, this cabinet member of the executive just said this and you're saying this. So yeah, it would be an extremely tough space, I think, to be in a senior leadership or any leadership position I think right now in the US military. And I say that with having had US military troops under command in Afghanistan. I've been under US corps command as a division commander and as a NATO deputy commander.
Omer:And I can say, hand on heart, any American soldier or service member that I've either worked for under or commanded, that is not their mindset.
Chris:It's gonna be a very interesting thing to watch play out and I don't envy any of the soldiers in that situation. I agree with you reflections of, of course, the US Army and all professional armies that were allied with, you know, and and learning a little bit about the military, you know, seeing how, you know, it relies heavily on training and doctrine and protocol and, of course, more training and more training. So
Omer:Yeah. Hopefully, this gets I've talked to this before. I mean, what it comes down to is that, you know, there's no more of an emotionally charged space in existence than being on the battlefield and especially in in in close quarter combat. And what we as professional militaries take pride in is that, our training, our values, our adherence and our respect for law of armed conflict and conventions and the ROVs that you're operating. And void of those things, they would just be reduced to this completely unmanageable brawl as opposed to leaders in uniform conducting operations because they're trained to do it, not because they enjoy doing it, which sometimes when you see what's on some of the news coming from down there, you get a different sort of perspective.
Omer:It's almost like it's a game. Well, it's not a game to the guys who are actually on the ground or in the air or on those ships conducting those operations. But the only reason we can do that is because we follow laws and international treaties rules of engagement, and that that changes it from being emotionally as charged as it is, but manageable. And that's why we have commanders in in command to ensure that it become it stays manageable and doesn't just come apart at the seams.
Chris:Well, let's let's shift gears again and talk a little bit about Afghanistan. In 2006, you're you're no longer a a rifle platoon commander. You're managing a standoff or managing a standoff. Sorry. You're you're you're lieutenant colonel now, Omer Lavoy, commanding the first RCR battle group in Kandahar Province during Operation Medusa, which is the noted as the most intense sustained combat Canadian troops have faced since the Korean War.
Chris:Decisions you're making now aren't about keeping 19 year olds steady at a perimeter. Obviously, they're about sending people into situations where they may not come back. And a and a and a reading about your role there, I noted something from one of your citations, which says that you led from the front sharing the dangers and harsh living conditions of your troops. You would have commanded from headquarters, or you so you could have commanded from headquarters and you didn't. In fact, I read somewhere else that I think the way you were described by the every soldier was as a fatherly figure.
Chris:Why does that closeness to the front lines matter, you know, for the mission and for the people under your command?
Omer:Well, I mean, I think it goes back to our training and to the leadership that I'd received at almost every level up to that point was in the infantry specifically, you lead from the front. It's pretty hard to try and lead from behind. And I would say up until that point, I don't wanna be glib and say, Oh, it's a cliche, but you truly felt it in Afghanistan when and I've been on other operations in Kosovo and Bosnia and whatnot that you had mentioned. And while they were a bit more intense than what we portray as our standard pre CP operations, they certainly weren't common operations like what we were experiencing in Afghanistan. But for me as a leader, I one, I just couldn't imagine doing it any other way.
Omer:Me, it's like I could not imagine standing up in front of a bunch of soldiers, giving them orders on what we're about to do or having to rally them because something we did went really bad, which happened on too many occasions. To do that and be amongst those soldiers there, but not having been amongst them when that bad shit was happening on the ground. So to me, it's just maxim of leadership. You have to lead on the ground and lead from the front. And I think the biggest part of that, and I've seen it lots of times, was twofold is that, yeah, you could choose to to try to command from your headquarters, and and some guys chose to do it that way.
Omer:And it's easily become seduced by all of the technology that we have in water headquarters now. So I put it to my headquarters, I had back in Afghanistan, that was pretty, it's really ancient times. You had all these kind of feeds coming in, monitors on the walls, everything from satellite imagery to drone imagery to aerial imagery, whatnot, and you could sort of be lulled into this false sense of comfort that, oh yeah, I've got a 100 situational awareness of what's happening on the ground. And I found on the very first day of my operations there when I took command, you couldn't be farther from the truth because on the very first day, I was back in Canar Airfield at my headquarter because I just signed a change of command, Sergeant Lavoyetzl was having a chance to get back out beyond the wire and on the August 19, and a big battle erupted on a piece of ground that I'd ordered one of my company commanders to take. And for the three or four hours that I was back at the headquarters trying to command that battle and enable that company from there, I think it was probably the worst three or four hours of my life in terms of operational life because despite me being able to see all the stuff on these monitors on the wall, unless you're actually on the ground and you're smelling it and you're seeing it and you're hearing it, you don't have a true sense of what's going on in the ground.
Omer:Part and parcel with that is, for me, I've always held this contention that if you were going to be making decisions that are going to affect the lives of your soldiers on the battlefield, then you damn well better be on the battlefield with them and making those decisions informed. And I'd heard often from soldiers saying that, especially with my original sergeant major and I, who sadly was was subsequently killed on that operation. But, you know, a lot of my soldiers would say, like, they'd say, sir, it's like, you know, when really bad shit was happening, but we look over and we saw you and the Reginald Sergeant Major with us, we sort of thought, oh, can't be that bad if they're here with us. I sort of took that with me in terms of that's what the soldiers need to see. You hope that you're providing value added and your job as a commander is to, you you're not fighting that close.
Omer:That's the job of company commander, assumed commander, secondary commander, but you're there to enable it and you're trying to set the conditions, one, for them to win and set the conditions to figure your next fight ahead of you. And I just couldn't imagine not doing that, being on the ground and sharing the sort of same risk and dangers and hardships with the soldiers.
Chris:Know, it seems obvious, but it doesn't seem probably common or easy. And I think that's a testament to your leadership. My question, just curiously as an entrepreneur, I mean, CEO and executive, I guess, but entrepreneurial. How do you how do you translate that quality in the workplace? Does it does it does it work the same way?
Chris:And we, you know, we if we deal with crisis or stress or pressure in the workforce, is that to you an indication of leadership or comparison?
Omer:Yeah. And I've been asked that question lots when I've asked to speak at leadership symposiums and whatnot for big companies and corporations. And I think while it translates to a degree, and it obviously depends on the type of industry you're talking about. Yeah, in some cases, certainly the CEO or the CEO or whoever being seen on the assembly floor or whatever it is they're doing, I'm sure does provide good leadership to the folks who are working on it. But I caveat that sort of answer with certainly amongst many things makes us distinct is that, and sometimes it's hard to get across when you're speaking to big corporations and CEOs or whatever.
Omer:And as you know, many times you might be CEO of company X, but you came in as a CEO and you may have had no history whatsoever with whatever it is that company absolutely does on the floor and you've been brought in for other reasons. That's different for us. I mean, for us, I I joined as a private, but most you join like, you don't join as a general, you join as a second lieutenant and you learn your way, you make mistakes and you're tested at every, almost every day. Like you're in the military, you're under constant assessment whether you like it or not. And so you work your way up to that, you know, level of being the CEO or or the boss or or whatnot.
Omer:And the other part of the answer is, though, is something that in, you know, some of my slides I have, I have this notion of what I call duality of command and specifically in the army, I think, but works for other branches as well. That in that what do mean by that? It's like the difference between us that always would exist is that it doesn't exist on the civilian side is when we have this notion of unlimited liability. When you sign up, regardless of what rank you are, you basically sign a blank check to the government for up to and including your life. So there's that part, which doesn't exist in any other profession.
Omer:But the other part of it is is that this duality of the commander is that on the one hand, and I'll just use Afghanistan as an example, on the one hand, let's say the height of Medusa where I had almost 1,500 troops, I think, under command, Canadian and allied. So you're this battle group commander and you're running the operation. But at the same time, you're still a soldier because in order to run that operation, my tactical headquarters, which looks the same as every other sub sub unit on the battlefield. So it's four light armored vehicles, all heavily armed, all got cannons sticking out. And even as the so called battle group commander, I'm still behind one of those cannons.
Omer:Then you get into some tough situations. The commander gives a command saying, My control. You take control of that cannon because your gunner can't or is wounded or whatnot and you're the guy firing the cannon or you're firing the machine gun or you're dealing with an ambush, which we and other commanders experienced countless times. You're roaming around the battlefield trying not to look like the commander even though these armored vehicles have about 10 antennas sticking out of each one of them. But when you get into an ambush or a firefight, you're fighting your way out.
Omer:Have countless war stories, but I give the example. When my Resident Evil Sergeant Major was killed on the patrol I was commanding, we were on our own. He was killed and my job there wasn't to run back to him, which is what every impulse in your body wants to do, but it's to get you out of that situation, to give orders, to fight, to reinforce, bring in other assets to enable you and fight your way out of there just as you would if you were a platoon commander because for that second in time, you are a platoon commander, you're back to being a soldier. So it's that sort of duality that I don't think, I can't think of any other sort of profession where on the one hand, you're giving the orders, but ten minutes later, you're also pulling the trigger.
Chris:Well, there's no profession like it, without a doubt. And we're grateful that people pick up that challenge. I want to focus in on 10/14/2006 in Pashmul. I think I'm saying that right. Afghanistan, you commanded the battle group that day.
Chris:And Private Jess Lavoyal was at an observation post when it came under fire. He was severely wounded. He held the post. He protected his platoon, and you were there. You watched it happen.
Chris:He was awarded the star of military valor, Canada's second highest decoration for bravery in combat. And you've said publicly and repeatedly that Jess Lavoy Chal deserves the Victoria Cross, and the government has not agreed. Can you walk me through what you saw that day and why you believe what you believe?
Omer:Yeah. So I mean, I'll just go back for a second and I'm talking to Chris, is that I certainly believe and I'm very active in this process to have his awarding of the Star Military Award reviewed in terms of whether it merits a Victoria Cross and that process has happened, petition has been released and that's being brought forward to parliament on the April 15 and I'm hoping this time around it at least, the process to do the review at least happens in his case. Yeah, and so my perspective on that is, I mean, it's a very personal one because on that day, on that minute when it happened, I happened to be on that combat position, strong point center. When it happened, just conducting normal, what we call battlefield circulation, talking to the troops, checking positions, talking to commanders, sharing intelligence, talking about next things that we're about to do in terms of operations. When just as we were leaving that position, it came under attack from a volley of small arms and rocking propelled grenades.
Omer:In with all that happening and having known right away based on the radio traffic that we had casualties, didn't know the extent at the time that there were two soldiers also killed. But it was in a perspective that from two perspectives. One, watching that young soldier despite being seriously wounded, still professionalism and the courage of arming rockets, firing those rockets into the center of mass of the Taliban and breaking that attack, then going on to his machine gun while still being wounded and firing thousands of rounds of machine gun rounds to continue to support his platoon, all the while me ordering my four labs and as part of my tactical leg orders to conduct a counterattack to support the platoon as well. So in that particular case, and sadly now, and I hold myself completely responsible for this as I do for everything that ever happened to any of my soldiers during that operations, is that it was so early, I think, in the war that we just never had a, this is a bit of a weak excuse, but never had a really good benchmark, I don't think, at that time in terms of the range and spectrum of Valor Awards.
Omer:We were only the second Valor Group to have fought there. So certainly in hindsight being twentytwenty, when I look back at it, certainly senior leadership at the time that I'm not gonna get into also agreed that if you look at Just Let Ourselves citation and you compare that to DC citations, it's enormously a lot of commonality in all those ingredients of, for typical ones, not all of them, but just ingredients of soldier or officer wounded, other soldiers killed despite the wounds holding his ground, continuing to fight and hold back the enemy and no doubt save other Canadian soldiers from being killed or wounded. So all those ingredients are in there, which is why I think a review is definitely in order and if we compare it to our major allies, US, the fact that our commonwealth allies all issued to Tory of Crosses in Afghanistan and in Iraq, US, they're sort of equal medal to that, the Congressional Medal of Honor, many issued during Afghanistan. And so Canada stands out as an anomaly both in the Commonwealth, but both also with our NATO allies as being the only country to have not done that. And we didn't do it in Korea either, even though Korea was still a British victorian across.
Omer:So that tells me that there's no way, if you look at all of the soldiers who've been awarded valor decorations in Afghanistan, that not one would merit a Victoria Cross or the equivalent to what our other allies had. I'm just hopeful now that with this new petition and this new tabling in Parliament, at least the review process will have gone forward and try to rectify that.
Chris:First thing, I guess one question, is there something that if Canadians care a lot about this, I'm I'm I'm sadly not going to promise a lot of people that may or may not see this. I don't know. I'm hopeful, but ultimately this conversation and certainly how Canadians support our CAF is consistent. Is there a way for Canadians to be involved in this petition now or is that something that's passed and we're awaiting decisions?
Omer:Yeah, so the petition, signing a petition now is closed. It's only I don't pretend to understand all the procedural efforts behind it, but what I do know is you only need 500 names for a petition to go forward, to be introduced at parliament. My understanding was the one for Jess has reached 15,000 or so plus, so, you know, significantly more than what is required as a as as the as the base level. So now, you know, I guess my answer to that question would be we'll see what happens on the fifteenth when it gets introduced, but what continue mean, you know, certainly Canadians continue could always continue to, you know, write your MP, email your MP, text your MP sort of get that sort of support behind it. I'm hopeful this time around that at least gets to the review process and then the end, if it's decided no, then it's no, but at least you can say it's been reviewed and it's been looked at and see what happens.
Omer:I mean, sadly, if it does happen, it's gonna be posthumously because Jess passed away a couple of years ago, even though he was aware at the time that this effort was underway, but other things took their course and he passed.
Chris:The Victoria Cross is interesting to me recently, and I'll share something that's not in the public discourse, but I think by the time this is it is this will be this will be known. Gina Beach Center, as you know, I'm president of the Gina Beach Center Association here in Canada, we're hosting our first ever gala on D Day, June 6 in Calgary. First ever fundraising gala, I guess. And quite excited to have the David Curry Victoria Cross on loan with us that night from the Canadian And War thanks to their kindness and support. They're a great partner of ours.
Chris:And I happened to be at the Queen's Own Rifles Gala at Casa Loma last year on June 4, and the Aubrey Cousins VC was in the room. And the weight that it shifts, the the sentiment that it pushes into the room and the importance of it is is profound, and I think these are symbols as well as recognition. And, you know, I guess I'm hopeful for your work there. I think that, you know, I I is it is it is it because we're Canadian that we're so unable to make that ultimate gift, meaning we're so humble? Or is it because it seems like you say, I mean, David Curry was only Victoria Cross, I think, Canadian Victoria Cross on in the battle of Normandy.
Chris:But, know, every other conflict, I think, at least up to World War two has produced them. Are are we just reticent now to provide that recognition, or is it a symbol of how Canadians don't think about this or care about this as much?
Omer:Yeah. I think, to try to answer that carefully, think when it comes to military honors and declarations, I think Canada's had a history of being very, I don't wanna say stingy, but conservative, I guess. And I think it comes out of humility. And I think in hindsight now that at the time when it was all going on and when I would have signed off on that citation for, and I can't remember now, my memory, I can't recall back in those days if you actually designated the level or you just wrote the ballot and it was decided, it eventually goes to an awards committee back in Ottawa and that's where the ultimate decision for the level is made. But I think at the time, yeah, I think it would have almost been seen as being almost, and maybe I'm choosing the wrong word here, but arrogant just to- Like boastful?
Omer:Yeah. Maybe arrogant's not the right word, but yeah. Certainly not humble to put in for a VC at that time that early in the conflict in Afghanistan. Like I said, really the benchmark, I don't think, had been established. Certainly, battle group ahead of us had a few as well, but certainly no VCs.
Omer:And then indicative of that, I think, you know, I think we were the second battle group in there. So I think almost 20 after us and no VCs, not to mention other elements of the forces. So I think it is part of our attrition of sort of humility or too conservative that when it comes to these things. Again, hindsight being twentytwenty, would I have changed it? I absolutely would have.
Omer:And certainly it's a responsibility that I'm burdened with now because I'm thinking to have not done that and to not push behind this review would have certainly failed the soldier.
Chris:Well, thank you for those efforts, it doesn't sound like you've ever really done that under anyone under your charge. Couple couple more quick questions for you, General. You know, we've kind of covered a lot of ground today. We talked about it, you know, 21 year old kid, a 20 year old kid from Manitoba who was executed by his government for something. His family eventually understood as being late from his girlfriend, meeting his girlfriend, and his sister died waiting for a pardon.
Chris:Canada never gave her or gave him. Young soldier made into a national icon at 19, celebrated, then quietly set aside when the person underneath the symbol turned out to be human. In a world right now where the frameworks these soldiers died to defend are being dismantled by the people who are supposed to uphold them. And then of course, finally, Jess Lachelle, who by his commanding general, the general's account did everything right, everything honorably at extraordinary cost to himself, and still waiting for the recognition that you believe he earned. My second last question, Omar, is after thirty seven years, after Oka, Kosovo, Kandahar, after Fowls and Cloche and La Rochelle we've talked about today, what do you want Canadians to carry on Remembrance Day that goes beyond the poppy?
Omer:Well, I think the answer to that question is, have been asked it lots before, is it's gotta be the sacrifice. We go into operations, especially combat operations, and our soldiers achieve great accomplishments during those operations. They accomplish and achieve the mission. Many of them are decorated for it, rightfully so. Many, many more should have been decorated for it, but for different reasons.
Omer:Probably would have issued three times on a decorations if I could have, but some soldiers just they do their job and no one knows. So there's that part of it. But I think the real piece behind Remembrance Day is sacrifice so that for all those great accomplishments and achievements of our soldiers and if I look at Operation Medusa accomplishing that mission in an area where lots of armies in history had failed to take that piece around. But behind all those accomplishments is the incredible sacrifice of those, in my case, 19 soldiers who didn't come back to Canada or who came back to Canada with a flag on the coffin. Hundreds of soldiers wounded physically and then two or three times that wounded psychologically.
Omer:So it's the amount of sacrifice that goes into being a soldier and accomplishing great things. We see that, but what we often don't see is all the weight of doing those things that are behind the scenes. So I guess from a Canadian's perspective, it's hard, I think, for someone who's never put a uniform on and experience that to fully realize it, but just that incredible amount of sacrifice that Canadian soldiers have experienced in the past and continue to.
Chris:It it feels like I'll I'll put a I'll put a plug in for what I am aware of and how, you know, Canadians in a modern context, you know, we live in I'm in Edmonton and, you know, of course, three is here at CFP Edmonton and and so I've built relationships with that community. The one thing I am familiar with is the military family resource center in in Edmonton and the services it provides in similar organizations like across the country at bases to support families today, soldiers' families when they're deployed. And so maybe it's just a good reminder to remember that it isn't just November 11. It's three sixty five days a year in our communities, and we can do lots to help those families. And there's lots of ways we can do that, of course.
Chris:So let's end with a you know, my producer partner, Brynn, and I were kind of chatting before the show, we were asking ourselves, you know, what does a retired general do? Thirty eight years of command and service to your country, and it's over now, and I see you're at your cabin and you've got a beer in your hand, and maybe there's something behind that, but as a retired general, what is it that you do?
Omer:Well, so no end of interest that I love doing and living out on a fairly secluded lake in the bush. A lot of hobbies, hunting, fishing, outdoor type of stuff. But on the other side of that is, you won't be surprised, I do a bit of consulting with defense industry, etcetera. But I think the most important thing that I do is to try to help out with advocacy issues on the part of my former soldiers who, and it's the whole range of just staying in contact with the families of the fallen. I'm still really close to many those families.
Omer:Doing some advocacy work, we discussed the work by trying to get this review for just by ourselves, VC. Do similar advocacy work with other soldiers who could use a hand, won't get into specifics but in a whole range of issues. And then of course it's still connected with the military in terms of regimental connections with the RCR. So the short answer is I'll keep myself pretty busy.
Chris:Well, General, it's been an absolute pleasure. Thank you for your service and for your honesty today and for this conversation. Let me wrap. Three soldiers, one century. Stephen Fowles, nineteen eighteen, 20 years old, late coming back from his girlfriends.
Chris:Canada executed him. Seventy five years later, his family finally learned why. Eighty three years later, Canada puts his name on a book, and his sister died waiting for more. Patrick Cluchet, 19 years old, held the line at Oka, and we turned him into an icon. And then we held him to the standard of the icon where he was still just a person.
Chris:And Jess LaRochelle, 2,006, did everything right. His commanding general has been fighting for his full recognition ever since. Three different ways the institution can fail the people it has to serve, by executing them, by making them symbols, that they can never live up to and withholding recognition they earned in blood. Yeah, General Lavoy still fights for just Lavoy still speaking. I still speak about fouls, and I'm glad we're all still showing up for the conversation.
Chris:My grandfather Barney came home from the second world war, one of the lucky ones. He built a life. He thrived, but he never talked much about what he'd seen. His generation rarely did. The space Barney's Tavern is named after him.
Chris:These artifacts exist because I believe the conversation he couldn't have, I believe the conversations he couldn't have matter. That talking about the real cost, not the glory, not the ceremony, not the poppy is how we actually honor the people we ask to serve. When we put someone in a uniform, we're asking them to carry weight that doesn't leave when the mission ends. The least we can do is be honest about that. This is Barney's Tavern, the conversations Canada needs, and I'm Chris Lavoyer.
Chris:And as a reminder, you can find us at barney'stavern.ca online and on Twitter and Instagram. General, thank you very much.
Omer:Thanks for having me. My pleasure.