Army Guy

Pierre Trudeau had little taste for the alliances and relationships he inherited in 1968. Canada had taken a lead role in creating the institutions of the postwar world, from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to the General Organization for Tariffs and Trade. Those institutions were intended in great part to contain the aggressive totalitarian regimes in the Soviet Union and China. In 1968, Canada remained a considerable military power and an important voice in the councils of the West. Trudeau repudiated that inheritance. His spending spree did not include the military. He cut air and naval capabilities, pulled troops home from Europe, and embarked on morale-destroying reorganizations of the military services. In 1968, Canada was a serious second-tier non-nuclear military power, like Sweden or Israel. By 1984, Canada had lost its war-fighting capability: a loss made vivid when Canada had to opt out of ground combat operations in the first Gulf War of 1990-91. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/03/23/david-frum-the-disastrous-legacy-of-pierre-trudeau/ And yes Trudeau did announce and plan the purchases of F-18, new frigates, and tanks, which were left to carry over into the Mulroney years. but you fail to mention why he had to plan this new purchases, was it presure from NATO command or from the US had it not been for this presure can you say with all honesty this purchases would have been made. And these purchases do not off set the damage he did do to our military forces at the time. The 2005 budget was an election budget, big promises that they had no intentions of keeping,they knew they were out the door, the proof is in the proof 1988 DND budget was 12.1 bil, 2004 it was 14.8 barely adjusted for inflation, not to mention we had entered Afghanistan which was eating up a major portion of the dept's budget. They had years to fix the military problem, and waited to their last budget to say maybe when need to address it....come on... you can't change history....No it took the Cons to find a solution and start the repair process.... Military expenditure (% of GDP) in Canada was 1.42 as of 2011. Its highest value over the past 23 years was 1.99 in 1988, while its lowest value was 1.14 in 2004. http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/canada/military-expenditure ... the major procurements the Conservatives have pushed forward on decisively—such as buying new Hercules tactical lift planes and Cyclone helicopters—were initiated by the Liberals. So far, he said, the Conservatives haven’t signed a contract for any major purchase beyond those planned by the previous government. The liberals were infromed by the military that the hercs were long over due for replacement, and you are correct the liberals had a plan for their replacement, but failed to launch on anything, if that is what we are counting now are plans then we also have to give the Cons credit for the many purchases that are on the books....more than any other government in the last 25 years or so....( it was not until 2006 that the cons ACP-T was announced and a contract signed and agreed upon in 2007 for new herc's. ) The Cyclone helos not even sure why you mentioned that purchase, because of it's failure and cost under the liberals, you would have done better just leaving that beast in the closet where it belongs...not a high piont for the liberals, or for that matter anyone else... As for the Cons not signing any major purchase thats complete B>>>S>>>, perhaps we have already forgotten these C-17 globe master, not only signed but delivered. CH-47D Chinnook's Purchased for use in Afghan, resold at the end of our combat role CH-47F Chinnook's contract signed and the first one's already in operation in Petawawa M-777 155MM Arty guns contract signed and most delivered TAP-V (tactical Armoured patrol vehs) contract signed and deliveries started Leo IIA4 (used) tanks purchased , and modified in Canada deliveries started Leo II based AEV, ARV contracts signed awaiting deliveries Close area suppresion system (auto grenade launcher) signed , delivered. Other small projects Small arms replacement project, Bison midlife update project., ongoing LAV III midlife upgrade project , Ongoing These are just the ones off the top of my head, i'm sure if you wanted to research it you could find plenty more...The main reason i piont this out is to show you your source is very bias and not very truthful. No reasonable observer would dispute that this is a period of renewal for the Canadian military, but it’s hardly one impervious to the pressures of budgetary restraint, and not one that eclipses the spending levels of the 1960s or the 1980s. That context matters. It suggests that what’s going on now is neither as extreme as critics of defence spending might argue, nor as remarkable as the government would have us believe. Perhaps i'm a unreasonable observer, and would hardly call it a period of renewal, when the forces is faced with the loss of core capablities which are nessicary for the defense of Canada and it's foreign policies. What your acticle fail to mention or account for is the price tag of these new CON projects such as the replace of fighter aircraft and new ships. Forgotten because it would blow thier ests and numbers out of the water, never in our history as any projects cost so much, i'd like to see those actual numbers added in to defence spending and plans just to see if it eclipses the spending levels of the 60's or 80's . But i don't think that would happen or your author of your source would not have a leg to stand on in regards to his story, which is what it is a liberal "feel good about ourselfs story" .

One of the very reasons why our military is in the condition it is today, our military along with many other depts paid a heavy price to assit in reducing spending to make that surplus a reality...

Here is a statement made by the state dept, saying other wise. The inspectors were in Iraq that much is a fact, however they were not allowed timely access to all of Iraq's facilities. How can one determine if any WMD's were present if the Iraqis were deciding where and when the inspection teams could go? http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030320-usia09.htm Here is another document breaking down all the issues leading up to the 2 and gulf war by date. http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02 After reading both documents can you honestly say that the US went to war strictly because of WMD's or was there, not so The US knew that Iraq had WMD's, they had told the inspectors as much, they Iraqi government had reported how much chemical and Bio wpns they had produced, using this base figure there was huge shortfalls in what was reported destroyed by the Iraqis and what was destroyed by the Inspection teams.... At the end of the day there was a shortfall, the numbers did not match, what was destroyed and what was still out there...even after the 2 and gulf war WMD were destroyed by inspection teams,( while they were produced before the 1 st gulf war.... ) they still had them in their inventories which were suppose to be destroyed that were reported to be destroyed.....proving that they either lied or did not have full control over these wpns.... And even after all this the data is gathered on what was destroyed "still" the numbers do not add up, meaning there is still WMD's still out there some where, just because the US can not find them does not mean they do not exist...The proof they do exist... is it was the Iraqis that provided the base number of what they produced....This added to the long list of reasons why there was a Gulf war II, it was not the sole reason.

Then they should face the same consquences, sooner or later the west is going to have to deal with the problem that a large portion of the Rebels is made up of spliter groups of known terrorist organizations that we have spent over 14 years trying to destroy.

That is not what the ISG final report prior to the 2 and invasion has quoted. And that one of the reasons The US proceeded with the 2 and invasion was. The U.S. government refused to accept the validity of UNMOVIC's conclusions and continued to assert that Iraq had failed to account for 1.5 tons of VX, 1,000 tons of mustard gas, and 550 munitions containing mustard gas during the UNMOVIC inspections, violating UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorableIraq's CW program was crippled by the Gulf War and the legitimate chemical industry, which suffered under sanctions, only began to recover in the mid-1990s. Subsequent changes in the management of key military and civilian organizations, followed by an influx of funding and resources, provided Iraq with the ability to reinvigorate its industrial base. The way Iraq organized its chemical industry after the mid-1990s allowed it to conserve the knowledge-base needed to restart a CW program, conduct a modest amount of dual-use research, and partially recover from the decline of its production capability caused by the effects of the Gulf War and UN-sponsored destruction and sanctions. Iraq constructed a number of new plants starting in the mid-1990s that enhanced its chemical infrastructure, although its overall industry had not fully recovered from the effects of sanctions, and had not regained pre-1991 technical sophistication or production capabilities prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/iraq/chemical/ Note it does not say Iraq was not producing Chemical wpns, just that they had not regained pre 1991 technical sophistication or production capabilities. They also raise the fact that there is a large descrepancy between what the Iraqis report they manufactured and what was destroyed by Iraqis or outside inspection teams. Following its defeat by United States and allied forces in 1991, Iraq declared to UN inspectors that between 1982 and 1990 it produced 3,859 tons of CW agents and more than 125,000 filled and unfilled special munitions, most of which was stored at the Muthana State Establishment, Iraq's primary CW production, filling, and testing facility. This declaration served as the basis for UNSCOM's subsequent efforts to verify the destruction of all Iraqi CW. Taking into account items unilaterally destroyed by Iraq prior to the beginning of inspections, UNSCOM was able to account for the destruction of 88,000 filled and unfilled chemical munitions, over 690 metric tons of weaponized and bulk CW agents, approximately 4,000 metric tons of precursor chemicals, 980 pieces of key production equipment and 300 pieces of analytical instruments Such as 3169 tons of Chemical agent, and 37,000 filled and unfilled special munitions. I will also note that this report In January 2004 David Kay resigned as head of the ISG and began to criticise the underlying premises of the groups work. On the basis of his work with the ISG Kay rejected suggestions that there had been any significant Iraqi WMD activities since the end of the first Gulf War. Dr. Kay was replaced as head of the ISG by former UNSCOM member Charles A. Duelfer. But even Kay had not come out and said Iraq was not producing Chemical wpns just that there had not been any significant activities

Gas Shells from WWI are commonly found in Europe and still very deadly to anyone exposed. Chemical agents designed today are meant to have a very long shelf life if stored and maintained properly. long enough to say anything buried in the desert would be deadly even after 25 years.

It is very difficult to rationalize any military spending to Canadians, when most Canadians do not know what they do or how they do it. Nor do they want to or care to educate themselfs on our military....Deep down every Canadian knows our military is in sad shape,be it equipment wise, number of pers, or our capabilities.... they laugh and joke about with their friends but that is were it stops for most people any ways...Those that have educated themselfs are concerned and as they should be as our military forces face many serious challanges in the near future. Having a military force of reasonable size acts as a deterent to others that may wish to do us harm, not just here at home but to other Canadian foreign assets as well, this includes our troops that we have deployed. Having a reasonable military force also gives you a seat at the many tables around the globe, such as the UN, NATO, NORAD, it gives that nation more credibility to push it's own agendas or have it's voice heard. For instance Canada pushed the idea of UN peacekeeping at the time Canada's military force was well over 100.000 troops with over 7500 deployed around the globe...i don't think we would have gotten the same reaction or face time if our forces where at todays levels, barely able to deploy 3000 troops for long periods. It gives our policitcians more cards to play on the diplomatic stage. The Military also is a first reponder to natual disasters, because it is suppose to have the equipment and readily deployable pers that is required, other depts are not set up this way because the military is the fall back for any of this. During the Winnipeg floods Canada deplyed our entire Army assets, and this was not enough, if this had been a major earth quake in say Vancouver with mass Cas , it would not be good for anyone. people would want answers and would not be happy when the government came back with "well this is what you wanted less taxes, small military" sometimes we have to make decisions that is for our own good and not very popular, but policitcians are not going to be that guy..... Providing Humanitary aid again the military plays a huge role in almost every stage of this....once again because of its deployable pers and equipment....Canadians are very giving,all it takes is a 45 second commerical and some tears and they open their wallets.... except when it comes to spending on the military. SAR is another service that our military provides, and nobody cares about it's condition or state until they need it, but like our fire houses they need up keep as well. Our Navy and Airforce patrols our coastal waters to ensure our fishing grounds are not over fished, drug smugglers are kept at bay,the list goes on and on, the Military is the fall back on these jobs because we chose not to fund the other depts.....but what happens when the fall back postion can't do it any more.... The list to properly fund our military could be serveral pages in length...I'm sure we all could add a few items onto it.

Canada has been a small player in Afghan and Libya missions, in regards to the amount of troops and equipment sent on these missions. Many other NATO countries have sent more troops and equip, they have done less with it....and during many press conferences Canadian government made that known "that these nations were not lifting their wieght"....however the 30 years previous we were one of those nations, where we sent troops with major cavets attached...like i said before in yugo we were known as CAN'T Bat 1 and CAN't Bat 2 because of it, meaning we sent over blood and treasure ,but did not want any of that blood spilt." it was a policitcal move only....it was not until 2003 that most of those restrictions were lifted and we actually activily seek out the enemy.....so as far as us pointing the fingers at other nations we have no right....we just recently got in the game.... LtCol Hope point is we have major gaps in our military capabilites, that could only filled by the US due to their surplus in many areas....for example we just recently purchased C-17, and can now move men and equipment in and out operations our x 4 aircraft give us a limited ability .....to get a Battle group in and supplied we would need help from the US...Note a battle group is any where from 1500 to 2500 troops....not a whole lot considering the us routinily moves men, equipment to support over 100,000 in one operation.... those purchases we are planning on , the ones you want to cut are needed not to increase our capabilites in those areas but to maintain status quo.... With major cracks in the NATO organization, the US, GB, CAN, AUStralia have already signed separate defensive pacts hence the ABCA pact.....this is some of the fall out from Afghan and getting other NATO nations to support that mission or haul their share....when that failed...this new coalition was formed.....which is great for Canada because these countries have been carrying their wieght some what...but with a smaller membership that wieght is going to get heavier.....and the missions will different

Sorry here they are again. http://www.warmuseum.ca/education/online-educational-resources/dispatches/canada-and-nato/ http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo7/no2/lawless-anarchiq-eng.asp

New Canadian cuts to it's limited support to NATO, During the last 30 years Canada has degraded it's contribution to NATO to the piont it is today. A few ships in the ATlantic, limited support in Afghanistan, and Lybia, when in comparison to other NATO countries. http://://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/17/canada-pulls-out-of-nato-airborne-surveillance-programs-to- http://www.cbc.ca/includes/ads/bbframe.html?ord=7169069780747165&adsite=cbc.news.ca&adzone=politics&adsection=politics&contcat=Politics&adpagetype=story&addcopt=dcopt=ist;&tile=2&pos=tobpox&adexclusions= And while some of the below articles have little to do with our topic, they do drive the piont that we as a nation are not a huge contributor to NATO, infact we are a small contributor. And that remarks made by our allieds are pionted towards Canada and many other Nations.. As NATO moves forward into the future, many nations are questioning it's usefullness, infact many cracks have already formed, the Creation of ABCA is a sign of that, America, Britian, Canada, Australia, (perhaps New Zealand) these nations already have new defense pacts signed. With such a small organization it becomes nessicary to have a stronger defense force...it also means leaving european AO and concentrating on the pacific area... http://www.warmuseum.ca/education/online-educational-resources/dispatches/canada-and-nato/ http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo7/no2/lawless-anarchiq-eng.asp http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/Canada%20and%20NATO%20-%20A%20Military%20Assessment.pdf http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/Is%20NATO%20Still%20Necessary%20for%20Canada.pdf Don't get me wrong , i am not trying to take anything away from what our military did in Afghanistan or Lybia, what i'm saying is for a nation of 40 mil, and a Mid ranged G-8 nation we could have done alot more....

I think you misunderstanding my postion, DND's current postion and it's state of equipment most of it is in dire need of replacement, that and our current purchasing model is flawed beyond belief....means if it is not replaced within the next 10 years or so, there will not be a military with any meaningful capabilities. The replacement of said equipment has been put on hold for many years, or cancelled because other concerns within the country....i get all that, but someday soon, there will not be an option, we either buy it, or slice that capability off the charts.....and then be forced by our allied to re invest, much like our old leo's or F-18, US government suggested trudeau we buy them. My postion is alot of this equipment is needed today, sea king helo replacement, new AOR ships, logistic vehs..... the other half of this equipemnt is going to be needed within the next 10 years, like our fighters, , etc.....and with our state of the art procurement policies we have in place, these programs need to be started now with some investment involved

Thats not how the real world works, our government will do everything within it's power to stop any agressive action or invasion, our troops will be deployed regardless it is what they do, regardless of how we equiped them.... This is just wishfull thinking to think that it was that easy ....walk into an armoury and get suited up.....suit up with what by the way ? There is no extra wpns, or equipment, infact there is barely enough for our Regular force members, and what they have is old and needs replacement....our reserves will be lightly armed, with very little major equipment to fight with....This is not call of duty , where you choose your wpn and gear then head out with no training, no nothing....you'll be dead before you even hit the battle field....But hey you'll be happy in the fact that we refused to allow our government to equip our troops with the tools we need , so we could do something useful like put more funding into welfare, unemployment, or building more low income housing...... Yes, because traditionally Canada has been a war machine, crushing nations around the globe for shits a giggles...History will tell you that....The Canadian military already knows this,it is not trying to expand into another huge military force for expansion, it has sent you countless warnings though if we do not act now there will not be any form of miltary left....to do anything...

Operating costs are calculated by a best guess, And depts, ie airforce, Navy can cut back on these costs simply by not operating this equipment for short periods. Airforce is famous for doing this, shut certain aircraft down for 2 weeks to save funding, to spend else where. But yes it cost alot to operate any fighter... I'm sorry but that is what is needed, to keep our current capabilites sooner or later it will happen or the government will face further redutions, until we have nothing left...The example i provided is one ,had we had Canadian air cover, they would have known the exact postion of our troops and this incident may have been avoided ( that day the company lost over 60 pers due to injury and death)....Heavy Casualties are the price you pay when a) your equipment is not as upto date as the bad guys, history is full of examples of this ie Sherman tank in WWII, was totally inferor to anything the Germans had, and because it could be mass produced cheaply we went with it, many allied tank crews died because of it.... you have never trained on modern equipment nor know the full capability of that equipment...Like i said before Canadian military history is full of examples. Those that do not support a large robust military force typically use that very comment (defend from whom) last time Canada was directly threaten was the war of 1812, when the US tried to invade...and yet it did happen...and yet when questioned would it happen again, and would you stake your life on it not happening ....most would say no...there is no Garentee it will never happen again...and if it did , who would the people blame for allowing it to happen...."themselfs" not likely..The government still needs to do it's part and provides that security has part of its mandate to the people. And our Sovereignty is tested on a regular basis, Denmark claims it owns Hans island,in fact it's military regular stops at the island to take the Canadian flag down and re insert the denmark flag.... the Turbot wars in the Atlantic,the Spanish actually sent a warship over to ensure it's fishing ves went unmolested while fishing in our waters.... kind of hard to inforce our sovereignty if we don't have a modern force to do that. infact it would be hard for our country to set any regulations that we could not support....Countries could sieze any land claims they wished, or break any regulations in regards to our fishieres....and with the north opening up, there are off shore oil, plus many other untapped resources all needs to be considered.... And while those events were closer to home , Canada traditional sends her forces overseas to fight there. the Boar war, WWI, WWII, Korea and major conflicts in which Canada sent her troops to fight.... In just before WWI our miltary consisted of 9500 troops, how many young men died because of the lack of training or equipment....WWII no different we learned very little from WWI , again our young men and women paid a price for not being prepared...that price was the lives of our citizens....Those wars you could build a ship in 30 days, a plane in a few, todays conflict is come as you are, it takes months to build a modern aircraft, years to build a ship....we will not have that opition...... We as a nation contribute very little to our NATO allieds, and they have grown accustomed to that some what, but they have not forgotten it, in fact many times they have demanded we do something to correct that.....So if we are not making usefull contributions to our NATO defense agreements one day we could find ourself outside looking in....force to defend ourselfs....which would be a much more costly adventure, you think Canadians don't like spending now, wait until we have to do it on our dime.... Candians will more than likely fight another conflict in some far away land, our soldiers will be more than willing to do that, i just hope that it's citizens can sleep at night , asking themselfs did we do everything we could for those men and women, Because it may mean some of those men and women are your children, father, or wife then serving our nation will take on a whole new ball of wax....

What is your measure when you compare contributions in Afghanistan ? NATO is alot more than just Europe, last time i checked Afghanistan is not even close, Nor is the the NATO fleet patroling Southern tip of Africa, NATO is a global contribution.. It's not just the Government , but also Canadian citizens that are not living up to their end of the bargin. I'm not sure how these purchases are going to make things worse....If you mean it is going to cost alot of taxpayers funding , then yes it is, but lets remember it is the first stop when the government is looking at finding additional funding for what ever, military has advised the government on numerous occasions what the consquences are of not properly funding the military, and replacing the equipment on a timily basis....some where some how someone is going to have to either pay the final bill or dismantle the military..... The Upper chain of command are rigid for a reason, they are protecting the nations ability to not only defend itself and live up to our defense agreements....DND has been cut to the bone already, their is very little fat left to trim... Yes it is pretty easy to scare anyone if you add in 30 years of operating costs which are a best guess to start with... (I Say best guess because if that equipment is used on operations those costs will be alot higher) maybe that is what the car dealers should start doing your 30,000 new car suddenly jumps to 300,000 over 30 years....i wonder how many cars would get sold......do you think you could talk the wife into a 300,000 car..... Operating costs for each piece of equipment the military has is already been calculated into each years annual Budget why do it twice it makes no sense, The government seems to think the public needs to know except if you wanted to jack up the total number and cost, to catch someone attention, in this case the publics.....like i said who wants to buy a 300,000 car, over 30 years, who wants to keep a car for 30 years makes no sense.

-Canada should work closely with our allies and live up to our commitments If you look at our current commitments such as NATO or Norad you'll find we actually commit very little,in comparison with our allieds.... Considering we are a G-8 Nation with plenty of resources,and most of these commitments are for our own defense and security. Our commitments continue to decline as our capabilities disappear, Once these are lost so is the expertise behind them, it takes years to regain, and cost more than if we had kept them upto date. For example in the Army our Air defense capabilty is almost non existent now most of that equipment is being sold off or put into long term storeage no replacement on books, we have already put our M109 SP heavy Arty vehs in storeage with no replacement on the books,the list reads like a book....Living up to our commitments will be a costly road to take. -The government expects DND to do too much with insufficient resources This is DND's curse, Canadian soldiers have been doing this for well over 30 years,and have become experts in overcoming obsticles placed in their paths, making do with what we have, jack of all trades master of none....to the piont we are known world wide because of it...Sad really when you consider every soldier in our military volenteers knowing the current state of our military, lack of nice new shiny equipment, and yet they still with out hesitation place their lives in danger without question....and in return all they ask is for Canadians and our government to atleast try and make some sort of contribution to that cause, in regards to manning,training and equipment. We really thought that the Cons were going to change all of that and for the most part they have done more for DND than past governments, but they have failing at fixing the mess left to them.... --The DND needs to change but it is resistant to change: I disagree with this statement, i think it is getting confused with professionals trying to save what they can in regards to their profession, and our nations security....if anything we are the nations leaders in adapting to change it is one of the corner stones of our etho's , in fact it is one of the pionts on each individuals annual performance reviews. Like i said above jack of all trades master of none, to accomplish that you need to adapt to many changes...Now if you look at our nation, can you tell me the same, Our military is in the state of decay, and risks becoming irrelvent if not repaired, every Canadian knows this, every poltician knows this, and yet who is afraid of change i ask.. I also disagree with Mr Taylors assessment of these procurements will cost huge amounts to operate. let me ask you this, when you purchase a new piece of equipment for your home, what is one of the reasons you do so, the older piece is costing to much to repair, it's not available to use when it's being repaired, the new equipment has new tech in it which makes doing the job easier,cheaper, and safer....how does that translate in costing more, not sure, maybe it is the new math....operating new equipment is almost always cheaper... Finally what I am proposing is consistent with what NATO reports call for: "In 2010, NATO proposed that its members eliminate some overlapping capabilities, with just one or a few members specializing in some tasks." Alot of these overlapping capabilities are there for a reason, they are required for that Nations defence, which is a prime consideration for all militaries defending their own nation,NATO commitments come second... second that capability might have a high attrition rate, meaning they are expecting major losses on the battle field, such as Aircraft, tanks, IFV etc....each nation must keep it's core military capabilities, which is what Canada is trying to do. How much do we spend 2.5 or 3.0 of GDP until we start fixing our problems this would have to be extended 20 to 30 years...unless you happen to have 400 bil in your pocket right now. The funding that the military has proposed is just that keeping our existing capabilities there is no new stuff on the books but rather replace our old and decaying equipment with new mordern stuff that is up to the job, and brings our troops home in one piece ... Having nice new fighters is not a nice to have but rather a must have, military equipment works like rock paper, scissors, it is all designed to provide a protection to ground forces, I know this is going to piss the navy and airforce guys off....the Navy keeps the sea lanes open so ground forces can get the supplies they need, the airforce keeps the skys clear, so the ground forces don't get pounded....F-35's and new navy ships are part of that, neglecting those parts will result in heavy cas....an example of that was the during op Mudusa, when a American A-10 mistakenly made servral gun runs on a RCR rifle company, within seconds it mangled a full rifle company to the piont it was combat ineffective, meaning less than 45 % of it was effective... Why do i think we should spend more....Well having the latest equipment saves lives, until our government changes it's mind about having a military or changes it's defense agreements then it should live up to the same commitment as it asks our soldiers to do. Right now it has failed in that task and so has it's citizens.... Where is it all coming from, i do not have a clue, but i'm sure if DND has waste so does every other dept it would be a good place to start. keeping in mind that for years DND has been the first place the government goes to get funding for other projects maybe it is time to reverse that.

I think if you and for that matter, most Canadians really did some serious research on our current Military and it's present condition( Manpower and equipment) you would have other concerns, not with limiting our spending but rather trying to find a solution to fix the years of neglect and polictical medling. It is hard not to make those assumptions when it comes out pretty clear in your posts, your concern about wasteful spending is however a valid one , one that has plagued every government dept for as long as i can remember, it is the way the system is set up, not just DND'd but the entire government is set up this way. I don't think anyone on this board would disagree that this system needs to be fixed...I think where everyone disagrees is your thought process into changing our military current structure and what equipment it needs to accomplish that.. Keep in mind the military does not have a upto date white paper, that would detail what it is to accomplish and what missions it needs to concentrate on. That being said it needs to cover all aspects of our defense and foreign policy requirements. How much do i think we need to spend, alot more than we are currently spending , and if you did some research on exactly where this funding goes and what it covers i think you'll agree as well. I don't see the government changing it's wastefull spending practices and procedures any time soon,so yes DND needs more funding alot more.... Canadian military will "never" have the same capabilities as the US,we don't have the funding nor will in the country to cover every aspect of defense or power projection. We already operate in a limited capacity in fullfilling our obilgations as a valid partner in NATO, NORAD....meaning we have already chosen the areas in which we want to cover and those we make a very limited contribution to. We can not limit those any further, with out some serious concerns from our allieds. In fact they have already mentioned this serveral times we need to up our game . We have a very limited ability to project power over seas, to be effective we need to commbine our resources with many allieds,but could not do it alone. To further limit these to one or two abilites would be crazy, we already depend heavily on NATO for defensive needs, meaning our current military could not even defend our nation, and is spread to the piont of breaking when forced to live up to our other defensive agreements... It is crictical that we don't lose any more capabilities, but rather start filling in those we don't have just to keep a general all rounded force that can attempt to defend or protect our foreign interests. DND has and will continue to let the government know exactly what we can or can not do, But this info has yet changed the government from over loading DND , forcing them to accomplish any tasking they send at it , because they know the job will get done regardless of the cost to equipment and manpower...It is this type of thinking that has put us in this present state of condition....lack of manpower and lack of modern equipment...lack of National will to fix it. why because for Canadians it is not a major concern...It takes the death of our soldiers to get any movment on most purchases, and then it is only an adhoc solution to please the public. And yes it is very demoralizing for all our members, to the piont many seek employment else where.

One would think that if you were going to develope an opinion strong enough to post on line about that you would atleast do some research on it, or atleast be aware of our militaries current capabilites.I'd be interested on why your so bent on limiting our capabilities, what is it about military that scares you so much,.....

Not sure in what context you mean when you say the "US is purchasing Russian tech" i know that the US Army has purchased Russian equipment from not just Russia but other ex soviet block countries, or what they have capture on the battle field, to be used in their OPFOR forces used to their train ground units. But i hav'nt heard the US buying said equipment just to incorporating any Soviet block tech into their designs, and why would they US or western Tech is years ahead of soviet or chinese tech... could you please provide examples of russian or chinese tech that was used in western block designs.

Thats just it, this is not some construction project down town, that a costing program can be applied to. This was rebuilding a entire nation that was subjected to 30 plus years of war. NATO knew it would not be a quick mission, removing the taliban for power was the easy part, they also knew that wiping out the entire idea behind the taliban would take generations. A quick look at history will confirm that is the case with most large conflicts. And in order to move on, something needed to be done with the country, a new government that would bind the nation together plus other projects IE the infra structure etc....and the security problem. 65 million people live in Afghanistan, with a couple thousand that are convinced they should be free to impose their beliefs by force on millions. So while the orginal mission was to remove the Taliban , capture OBL it would morph into a nation rebuilding mission. which is the 3 rd block of warfare, as you want to ensure that the lives lost, funding spent was not for nothing and another verision of the taliban poped up in it's place. The idea of negotiating with the taliban is the result of years of fighting, trying to put this terrorist action into the history books. A while i'm not a fan of it, i don't have to live there day after day fearing that going to the market might be my last because of some bomber.... What the taliban know is it will never be as it once was....the Afghan people are not willing to let that happen....as much as they are not fussy with NATO, they DO NOT WANT to go back to Taliban rule... There has been alot of concern on what will happen to Afghan after NATO leaves, most say the Taliban will roll in and take over again, i don't think so, As much as the people hate the ongoing corruption they don't want the taliban back in power. Afghan military forces have been fighting this battle by NATO rules, and once they leave they're hands will be untied to hunt these scumbags down once and for all. The only hitch is Pakistan and what they will do, and if NATO can keep them in check then i think everything will work itself out.

Thank you AM, It is an up hill battle trying to convince anyone of the good that was done in Afghanistan.

It is easy to blame our active particapation in Afghanistan for the rise in Home Grown terrorism , but this has been a problem for decades well before Afghanistan was even on the radar. It is a recruiting tactic that terrorist use for various reasons. A western recruit is a coup for any terrorist cell, they get a lot more media attention when caught or killed, compared to Local members. Look at Khadr and how much media he received. Western recruits can travel a lot easier, often have their own resources such as cash, etc to travel purchase wpns, training, etc… Ray Boisvert spoke about the case again on Tuesday and told CBC News Canadians shouldn't think the case is atypical, reiterating what he told CBC chief correspondent Peter Mansbridge on Monday. "It's really a story that may affect our identity as Canadians," he cautioned in his interview with Mansbridge. Xristos Katsiroubas, left, and Ali Medlej have been identified as the young Canadian militants involved in the attack at the Algerian gas plant. (CBC) "Sometimes Canadians see these sort of religious-political motivations as being something that affects others, or just a small part of the community," he told CBC News on Tuesday via Skype. "But that's not the case. This is not about Canadians or a particular group. It's about vulnerable youth, falling prey to a nasty subset of religious ideology driven through al-Qaeda narrative, being driven by a sense of adventure, a sense of purpose, a sense of meaning in their life, or perhaps following someone of influence in their life that will them to a path of violence." When asked whether the story about young men in Canada being radicalized is typical, Boisvert said it is. "It's quite typical. I have seen several cases over the years, affecting young people in small communities, or young people in large cities. It can be done over the internet, but the process is an individualized one." Boisvert said these "influencers" in somebody's family life will try to "hide in the shadows." Thses are not the only Canadians to have been radicalized, like CSIS has said there are thousands. and they are not all traveling to Afghan but world wide. You make some big leaps in announcing the Taliban victory parade, Do you really think the people of Afghan are going to let them back in to rule your sadily mistaken. As for the mistake that Canada made, nothing but opinion, nothing more, everyone has one....you may change your mind if you could first hand see the differences we have made in that country....In fact I'm proud of what we did, standing up for the little guy may not be a big deal to you, but for me it is what Canadians do, and has been doing for years.

It is not a simple question, but rather a misguided one, it's a question that would be asked by someone that refuses to educate themselfs on this conflict....and regardless of what answer is given you will not change your mind or stance. If was worth forfeiting thousands of your fellow citizens lives So, Why not ask those that served there , I mean each and everyone of them were volunteers, no one was forced to go , even though we were trained, and knew somewhat , what we were going to face we still went, we left our families, friends and love ones behind because we thought it was worth the cost....For a majority of those that served in Afghanistan they did it multiude of times, the average being 3 the most being 8 tours of duty...that has got to speak volumes as to was it worth it...And while it did not compare to storming the beaches of Normandy, it was by far a picnic....And i for one would say it was worth it, and in speaking for fallen comrads , those that i knew and served with they thought so as well.... Some things just can not be analysis for cost, things like your childs life, cost of freedoms, or little things like going to school ,it is the little things that will change everything..... not just for girls and women, but boys and men as well. It is hard to convince someone that education can change everything, it produces the leaders that will lead them out of this dark hole, it will produce the the knowledge that will improve their infra structure through engineering, through medical training and research and so on and so on....Education is what will change their culture allowing the mid evil beliefs fade into the sun set.... The Maiming of others is unfortunite and until man puts away the toys of war this is going to be a fact of life, it is war it's ugly and it is here to stay a while. Canada as a nation went to assist Afghan rebuild it self, not only after all the damaged caused by Nato or the US coalition but the entire mess pf well over 30 years of war which for the most part destroyed the nation completely...And during our stay Canadians built Dams for Hydro electricity, Paved Hyways to move cusumer goods, thousands of wells for drinking water, irigation ditchs for crops, hospitals, police stations, fire stations, we also trained hundrds of thousands of soldiers, cops, medical staff, fire fighters, EMS techs, the list gos on, I also want to piont out that Canadian soldiers also purchased out of their own pockets Ambulances, fire trucks etc..... Nobody has said that Afghanistan is perfect, the media will not allow us to forget that, but our nation is not either....And it will take generations to slowly perfect it.....then and only then can we sit back and say Afghanistan is a sucess or not..... SO what is your life worth, what would you pay for the freedoms you have today....because huindrds of thousands have already paid for those with their lifes.... Afganistan on average cost each taxpayer 20 dollars a year, or for 12 years, 240 Canadian dollars was this to much for you, was it to much to give alittle bit of that to someone that had nothing.....I mean our military did all the hard stuff for you...plus they paid their 20 bucks a year as well.

Why has the public grown so interested in military purchases, why has the government given the public a voice, that seems to influence such decisions....Why is this voice not interested in any other purchases made by the government.....it seems to concentrate only military purchases....what experience does the public bring to these talks.... One of the main stumbling blocks of these purchases is that they are far to policticalized, instead of concentrating on purchasing what would be the best for our military, we concentrate on what is the cheapest, it needs to have a majority of Canadian componets, or the Nation must have something in return....it needs to be acceptable to Canadians, not to offensive in nature, not to war like, it needs to be just right ..... Canadians only concern is HOW MUCH DOES IT COST.....everything else well that is not taken into account by the public....and i get it it is tax payers dollars that are used.....But DND already has a cap on their budget, which includes new purchases.....So that control is already set by government The F-35 is a prime example....the Airforce experts have already chosen this aircraft because it is the best on the market....they have already sold their argument to the government, ......and yet the public would seem to know more about this process and what is best for our countries defense have made their voice heard they don't like the price.....and to screw that up....they changed the rules to inflate it so more of the public would get sticker shock and add their voice to the debate.... So why is it that we are just interested in military spending , and not the spending of other depts....and why is it that the lifes of our military members don't even factor in any of the public debates...

Not sure where you going with this, are you suggesting we enter into this conflict....either way we are going to be subjected to blow back as you say....I'm with derek let them solve this issue on there own , in fact all the western nations should pull out and let syrians kill each other....to many players involved this thing is only going to get bigger....

Just wondering if the Americans manged to work out all the problems IE tailrotars etc.