The Canadian Army Journal

EDITORIAL—SOLDIERS AS WRITERS
Major Andrew B. Godefroy, CD, Ph.D.
When we think about soldiers as writers, two images
often come to mind. First is the popular image of the warrior
scholar—the Sun Tsu, Clausewitz, or Machiavelli-type
character that attempted to explain in as clear terms as one
was able, how one thought wars could and should be fought.
The second popular image is that of the diarist, such as John
Le Couteur, an officer from New Brunswick who fought in the
War of 1812 and left behind an insightful account of that
conflict, or Private Donald Fraser of the 31st Battalion, whose
First World War diary remains a standard reference for
scholars nearly a century after its creation. Yet whether one
writes to think about war, or alternatively, capture its terrible
memory, both play a critical role in defining the legacy of the
armies in which they serve. Through the use of two very different approaches, both of
these character types remind us of the terrible price that conflict can exact from those
who choose to ignore its dangers, or forget the lessons that were purchased at so high
a price. Most important, perhaps, both reveal in their own way why it is so important for
some soldiers to also become writers, as well as how those writers help define the very
nature of the army itself during a specific period in its history.
At the end of the First World War, for example, soldiers returning to Canada found
themselves struggling to identify and define that which they had been exposed to, and
luckily, managed to physically survive. Many of those who served overseas between
1914 and 1919 had graduated straight out of school and into military service, and most
of them lacked the experience of longer life upon which to reflect, or the literary
eloquence required to explain what they had experienced overseas in philosophical or
abstract terms. Men like Sigfried Sassoon, Wilfrid Owen, and others were the exception
to this situation, and these men also tended to be older. Sassoon, born in September
1886, only began publishing poetry regularly in 1917, when age, experience, and
wisdom were at the disposal of his pen. From a Canadian perspective, John McRae was
already a combat veteran of some experience when he joined the Canadian
Expeditionary Force in 1914. Though not considered a poet by profession, a single
attempt by him to identify and define his experience in the verses of ‘In Flanders Fields’
created a legacy far beyond what he ever could have imagined, and defined for every
generation after the nature of commitment and sacrifice in war.
Our perception of Canada’s Army in the Great War is very much defined and
influenced by the writings of such men and women at that time. We depend on official
accounts, private memoirs, as well as subsequent interpretations to understand how
Canada’s Army evolved through that difficult period. Today, all those who write for The
Canadian Army Journal are playing a similar role, although one would hardly think
themselves that they are actually doing so. Yet participation is critical, not only to the
success of the CAJ, but to the larger goal of preserving the legacy of the army during
this period in history, as well as defining how our actions today will be understood by
generations tomorrow.
This issue of the CAJ presents a variety of articles examining both the theory and
application of conflict. Both Eric Ouellette and David O’Keefe provide historical analyses
of past conflicts, while Mr. Shaye Friesen and Major Alex Haynes examine issues
surrounding theoretical and operational research. Majors Strickland and Gifford
Canadian Army Journal Vol. 11.1 Spring 2008
3