Canada's flawed military policies

[Argus]

Governments in Canada have shown very little attention or interest in the needs of the military over the past thirty years. And Harper's Conservatives have not been much of an improvement over that. Governments are preocupied with policies and deal making which they hope will bring them further electoral success - as opposed to bread and butter issues like roads and ports and the military - unless the procurement can be touted as bringing jobs into important ridings, of course.

We've had scattershot announcements of purchases, and possible purchsaes over the last few years, but nothing substantive. The military has not increased by so much as a single soldier, sailor or airman, despite being overburdened by the Afghan mission, and there has been no defense white paper on what it's priorities are to be.

Australia, by contrast, just brought out a white paper which will govern not only military priorities but purchases over the coming decades in an organized fashion. Australia, about 2/3rds the size of Canada in terms of both economy and population, has announced, for example, that it will purchase 100 fighter planes. Canada has announced it might go for perhaps 60 or so, which is the most we can possibly afford, but there's no set date for that. Australia will purchase 12 submarines - Canada is desperately trying to repair the 4 used ones we bought. Australia will purchase a couple of dozen combat helicopters, ie, gunships. Canada has none and has no plans to purchase any. Australia's defense minister spoke of "self reliance" and said "we need to be able to defend our country without necessarily relying on the assistance of other nation states."

What a shocking thought! Imagine that!

Canada has made a few mouth noises along those lines over the years, but never backed it up. Harper has flexed his rhetorical muslces about the north, but done nothing whatsoever to improve our defense or assert our soverieignty. There are no icebreakers, despite their promise a couple of elections ago, and it is extremely unlikely the government will commit to any given their priority of trying to buy votes in Quebec.

Unfortunately, the only thing to look forward to if or when Harper is replaced by a Liberal government are cuts to defense spending, as already accidentally released in a conference call by their defense critic during the last election.

[bjre]

If those are useless toys, why we need to buy it just because other nation does.

If Harper is able to make economic boom, and make us live happier, I would say nothing no matter how many toys you would like to buy.

[Oleg Bach]

If those are useless toys, why we need to buy it just because other nation does.

If Harper is able to make economic boom, and make us live happier, I would say nothing no matter how many toys you would like to buy.

We don't need a repeat of the Bushite era, where you had leaders to stupid to run a nation and resorted to the old play book of "when in doubt have a war to stimulate the economy" - it enriches just a few and creates great distress to the many. Our policy at present is one enforced and forced on Harper by the American military complex..we really don't have a policy - what does ours consist of? "so a little girl can go to school" AND - "bringing democracy to the needy" ?

[bush_cheney2004]

.....Our policy at present is one enforced and forced on Harper by the American military complex..we really don't have a policy - what does ours consist of? "so a little girl can go to school" AND - "bringing democracy to the needy" ?

That's right...if you don't figure out what you want to be when you grow up, somebody else will do it for you.

[Smallc]

So that paper they released....the one with dates and everything...what would you call that?

Also, it's important to point out that he military is getting recruits, but attrition is high, that is why the land force hasn't grown at all and the other two have only gone up by very small numbers.

[bush_cheney2004]

So that paper they released....the one with dates and everything...what would you call that?

No need for fancy names...the Aussies just call it a Defence White Paper:

http://www.defence.gov.au/whitepaper/mr/index.htm

[Smallc]

And? The Canada First Defence Policy seems to have a similar theme.

Ships - 2015

SAR aircraft - 2015

Maritime patrol aircraft - 2020

Fighters - 2017 (though I am not fond of the 65 number....but I'm sure the people that wrote it know more than me)

And more to come.

The only things that ire behind right now are the supply ships (apparently there will be an announcement around summer time) and the Leopard II refit program (someone dropped the ball there).

[bush_cheney2004]

And? The Canada First Defence Policy seems to have a similar theme.

Slight difference based on past procurements...the Australians are more likely to follow through on it.

[Smallc]

Slight difference based on past procurements...the Australians are more likely to follow through on it.

Really? Everything that's been announced since about 2004 has been done or is in process. Those things will be replaced at about those times as they will have to be. It's that simple. Now granted, they may be a year or two later, but they will happen.

[bush_cheney2004]

Really? Everything that's been announced since about 2004 has been done or is in process. Those things will be replaced at about those times as they will have to be. It's that simple. Now granted, they may be a year or two later, but they will happen.

Not if PM Harper rolls out.....Ottawa will be back to buying used broke dick submarines.

Edited May 2, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

In fact, more has been done than has been announced.

[bush_cheney2004]

In fact, more has been done than has been announced.

More than less is not really more.

[Smallc]

Not if PM Harper rolls out.....Ottawa will be back to buying used submarines.

I said 2004...in fact I would go back earlier, to 2002 or so. Ignatieff is a person whose big on foreign policy....he won't be weakening the military to any large degree.

[Smallc]

More than less is not really more.

Oh yeah....more has been done than announced, that is a fact.

[bush_cheney2004]

I said 2004...in fact I would go back earlier, to 2002 or so. Ignatieff is a person whose big on foreign policy....he won't be weakening the military to any large degree.

Ignatieff hasn't done anything except to write books. I guess he can throw books at them.

[Smallc]

Ignatieff hasn't done anything except to write books.

[kimmy]

Australia's defense minister spoke of "self reliance" and said "we need to be able to defend our country without necessarily relying on the assistance of other nation states."

What a shocking thought! Imagine that!

Australia has little choice in the matter. The only nearby country of any significance is Indonesia, a potential adversary. They're halfway around the world from their allies.

-k

[normanchateau]

Ignatieff is a person whose big on foreign policy....he won't be weakening the military to any large degree.

Weakening the military is not among his policies or beliefs. If anyone has evidence that Ignatieff has personally proposed cuts in military spending, I'd like to see that evidence. Like Harper, he supported the US invasion of Iraq and unlike Dion, he supported extending the mission in Afghanistan beyond 2009.

The quotes below are from a December 10, 2008 article in the National Post:

• Mr. Ignatieff similarly rejects the Liberal tradition of lauding Canada's military past while starving the army of money, material and political support. Chretien let the Forces wither; Martin slashed and burned in his battle against deficit spending, then tried to make it up with big budget increases when times improved. Perhaps Mr. Ignatieff's best-known position is his support for a strong military, willing to play a serious role on the world stage:

"People sometimes ask me why a human rights teacher is such an adamant defender of a robust military for Canada," he says. "In the failed and failing states of our world, the most urgent human need-the central unmet human right-is security. People at the mercy of tyrants and gunmen need protection, first of all. To protect them, we have to have the capacity to fire back."

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It would seem to me that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

We need to consider the plight of our economy as well as the future needs of defense. It costs a great deal to field a military force and much of that expense is realized through procurement of weapons and systems designed and manufactured outside of this nation. One way to reduce that expense is doing things in house, so to speak. We do this with our naval vessels, not aircraft and not armor. There is a lesson there to be learned.

We need only design and implement a defensive strategy for three sides of our nation, all of which involves shorelines, with an added bonus of ice in the north. The forth side being the USA, and given the fact thatthere is no defense against nor needed on that front we are able to save a great deal on land defense. That leaves air and sea defense. So it boils down to what can we do to properly address these two facets. Aircraft carriers is what we actually need. Now in order to do that properly we need to look at carrier battle groups because that is what we ultimately require.

Since we were looking at a stimulus package anyway, why not kill two birds with one stone. If we are going to spend a lot of money, why not at least spend it to get something we need done?

[Smallc]

I do leave open the idea that there will be small budget decreases in all departments in order to get Canada's finances back in order. Other than that, I don't foresee any real weakening by an Ignatieff government.

[normanchateau]

Since we were looking at a stimulus package anyway, why not kill two birds with one stone. If we are going to spend a lot of money, why not at least spend it to get something we need done?

Because Harper doesn't have the balls to do it. His number one priority is staying in power at all costs and principles be damned.

[Smallc]

There are rumblings that some of the money will be transferred to the ship building programs in order to get the Coast Guard patrol ships and the JSS program back on track by summer. Let's hope so.

Edited May 2, 2009 by Smallc

[Leafless]

Australia has little choice in the matter. The only nearby country of any significance is Indonesia, a potential adversary. They're halfway around the world from their allies.

-k

Deep down kimmy, do you really think the U.S. gives a damn whether Canada is their ally or not?

They are our ally simply because we are their buffer zone.

Canada needs a functional well equipped military.

[Smallc]

Canada needs a functional well equipped military.

It has that...it simply needs to be even better equipped. Also, the US cares about us for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being energy.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

We stand between the USA and Russia, that makes us pretty darned important to them.