Military Can't Even Afford Training and Upkeep Due to Afghanistan&

[William Ashley]

http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Canadian+military+faces+million+cutbacks/2382274/story.html

THE CF is scaling back its training and maintenance due to funding deficits. What does this say about the state of the military? What does it say of recruiting shortfalls, when it can't afford to operate the military at its current size, to a standard they previously did?

Edited January 2, 2010 by William Ashley

[Smallc]

We spent over $21B on the military this year. The cuts are being made for one reason: To allow the Canada First Defence Strategy to proceed as planned. There can never be as much money for things as we want there to be, because if we allocated everything we needed everywhere...we'd be broke....fast.

[William Ashley]

We spent over $21B on the military this year. The cuts are being made for one reason: To allow the Canada First Defence Strategy to proceed as planned. There can never be as much money for things as we want there to be, because if we allocated everything we needed everywhere...we'd be broke....fast.

Military Can't Even Afford Training and Upkeep Due to Afghanistan

The cost of Afghanistan alone would pay for the Canada First Plan

They open up their delivery stating soilders are overworked and there arnt enough yet this - to plan for canada first we need to reduce troop levels - isn't that hypocracy?

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/focus/first-premier/defstra/rebuild-rebatir-eng.asp

Edited January 2, 2010 by William Ashley

[Smallc]

The cost of Afghanistan alone would pay for the Canada First Plan

But you know what? Without the wake up call of Afghanistan, is probably never would have happened.

[Smallc]

.

Edited January 2, 2010 by Smallc

[Topaz]

My niece who is in the army is going to California for training, probably the desert to get use to the heat and the terrain. I think she and others will be leaving for Afghanistan in April and she is scared because she'll be one of many that will be on the deliver of goods in the trucks. I know in my area, people who have done their time in the military are leaving, especially if they have been in Afghanistan. One guy said it was a hell hole of a country and that he had enough! One thing is for sure, if the Canadians military are not training our guys the right way, I'm sure McKay will hear about it over and over again from the opposition parties and Canadians who have loves in the military.

[Bugs]

My niece who is in the army is going to California for training, probably the desert to get use to the heat and the terrain. I think she and others will be leaving for Afghanistan in April and she is scared because she'll be one of many that will be on the deliver of goods in the trucks. I know in my area, people who have done their time in the military are leaving, especially if they have been in Afghanistan. One guy said it was a hell hole of a country and that he had enough! One thing is for sure, if the Canadians military are not training our guys the right way, I'm sure McKay will hear about it over and over again from the opposition parties and Canadians who have loves in the military.

Good for your niece. She volunteered for this. If she's into it, the country is behind her. None of what I say is meant to be critical of her. If you're worried for her, well, who wouldn't be? Any normal person would.

However -- doesn't the fact that your niece is going to California for this training, and to acclimatize her body, tell you all you need to know? When did the Canadian army ever go to such lengths before? In the same way, doesn't the $21 billion in expenditures tell you anything? Sure, only a fraction goes to the troops, but our forces are better equipped now than they've been for two or three decades.

What evidence is there that our troops' training is deficient? Or equipment, either? None, as far as I know.

What I think is far more dangerous is that we don't get to know anything, anyway.

Somehow, the military situation in Khandahar has turned around. We were stacking up the corpses two years ago, remember? Now our people are staying in their bases as much as possible, and the Taliban can do as they please. However this happened, however the Taliban did it, whenever it happened, we have seemingly lost our struggle.

Our media -- the same media working so hard to pin some kind of remote association with torture on our troops -- totally missed the military aspects of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. All we know is what happens between the IED explosion and the ramp ceremony. Their coverage of the war is actually a disgrace.

This bothers me far more than equipment and training. Our feckless, ideological media are trying to give Stephen Harper the George Bush treatment, rather than cover the war. As a result, we don't really know if our troops are involved in something futile, or if there's a point. And that makes all the difference. If a loved one is going to war for something with a prospect of success, and worthy, certainly it's different from seeing that loved one being used as a patsy in some bit of 'wag the dog' face-saving.

Edited January 2, 2010 by Bugs

[bush_cheney2004]

My niece who is in the army is going to California for training, probably the desert to get use to the heat and the terrain....

Probably going to Ft. Irwin's NTC (Mohave Desert)....not terribly hot in the winter or early spring. Not too far from Baker or Barstow.

[waldo]

Our media -- the same media working so hard to pin some kind of remote association with torture on our troops -- totally missed the military aspects of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. All we know is what happens between the IED explosion and the ramp ceremony. Their coverage of the war is actually a disgrace.

This bothers me far more than equipment and training. Our feckless, ideological media are trying to give Stephen Harper the George Bush treatment, rather than cover the war. As a result, we don't really know if our troops are involved in something futile, or if there's a point. And that makes all the difference. If a loved one is going to war for something with a prospect of success, and worthy, certainly it's different from seeing that loved one being used as a patsy in some bit of 'wag the dog' face-saving.

at least you appear equal opportunity with your 'feckless ideological' labeling... just what kind of 'military aspect war' coverage are/were you expecting? You appear to support the, as you say, "mission"... and yet, you question its futility and pointlessness based on your perception of media coverage. Media coverage? Really? You mean a little more rah rah patriotic drum beating from the media is all that's keeping Canadian combat troops from being extended beyond 2011?

apparently, one of the latest national polls suggests the media is anything but feckless in getting your described ideological message out there... or... the Harper Conservatives have done a remarkable job in failing to bring your preferred message across. 84% want Canadian combat troops withdrawn from Afghanistan... 51% before 2011

[Army Guy]

at least you appear equal opportunity with your 'feckless ideological' labeling... just what kind of 'military aspect war' coverage are/were you expecting? You appear to support the, as you say, "mission"... and yet, you question its futility and pointlessness based on your perception of media coverage. Media coverage? Really? You mean a little more rah rah patriotic drum beating from the media is all that's keeping Canadian combat troops from being extended beyond 2011?

apparently, one of the latest national polls suggests the media is anything but feckless in getting your described ideological message out there... or... the Harper Conservatives have done a remarkable job in failing to bring your preferred message across. 84% want Canadian combat troops withdrawn from Afghanistan... 51% before 2011

I also think our national media has done a dismal job of reporting the war, most not all but most of the Canadian media fly into kanadar and never leave the wire, instead rely on HQ after action reports given each night in front of the press, or from returning soldiers who for the most part don't really trust the media, or respect them enough....that being said they're have been a few reporters that have atleast went outside the wire and earned the soldiers trust and admiration....reporting what they saw without putting some PC twist to it.

As for our current government and the previous one both have done an even shitter job ensuring Canadians are atleast informed with the facts....This has done more to hurt the mission than anything else.

Polls , both of us know that polls mean nothing, except to bureaucrats and politicians....i mean really even if 99% of Canadians disapproved do you really think anything would be done to return the military....and what are we returning them to, the next mission...or the next fiscal cuts to the budget....

[Army Guy]

My niece who is in the army is going to California for training, probably the desert to get use to the heat and the terrain. I think she and others will be leaving for Afghanistan in April and she is scared because she'll be one of many that will be on the deliver of goods in the trucks. I know in my area, people who have done their time in the military are leaving, especially if they have been in Afghanistan. One guy said it was a hell hole of a country and that he had enough! One thing is for sure, if the Canadians military are not training our guys the right way, I'm sure McKay will hear about it over and over again from the opposition parties and Canadians who have loves in the military.

She`ll get some very valuable training in the US, our military has not cut any training dollars for operational training, meaning she`ll get all she needs and more...As for her being scared, she`s not alone every soldier there is scared,. training will kick in and she`ll do fine...just like the thousands of soldiers that have gone before her.

Afghan is one hell of a country, and i`ve heard described much worse...and while i don`t miss being there i would go back if asked,...my wife won`t allow me to volunteer any more...

[Bugs]

at least you appear equal opportunity with your 'feckless ideological' labeling... just what kind of 'military aspect war' coverage are/were you expecting? You appear to support the, as you say, "mission"... and yet, you question its futility and pointlessness based on your perception of media coverage. Media coverage? Really? You mean a little more rah rah patriotic drum beating from the media is all that's keeping Canadian combat troops from being extended beyond 2011?

apparently, one of the latest national polls suggests the media is anything but feckless in getting your described ideological message out there... or... the Harper Conservatives have done a remarkable job in failing to bring your preferred message across. 84% want Canadian combat troops withdrawn from Afghanistan... 51% before 2011

Groan ... I don't know why you don't give me even a little bit of credit.

Why couldn't the media ever, even once, give us illustrations of the kind of 'work' our troops were doing? Why couldn't they help us to understand the terrain, and the objectives of the mission? Its because the news is being collected as part of a narrative that depends on stressing the cost in blood, and ignoring the benefit.

You tell me ... how were we going to understand the meaning of this struggle. The tide turned and the media never told us. We don't even know how this war went. They report from 'sources', or they're at the airport, waiting to get pictures of the ramp ceremony.

I don't require rah-rah coverage, but do I have to suffer 1960ies style anti-war propagandizing parading as news coverage all over again? Can you deny what I say? No wonder people are vulnerable to worrying that, with Obama's election, the effort has been wasted. It will probably end up being a bargaining chip, thrown in, along with Israel, to try to cajole the Mullah's of Iran.

====================================

Angus Reid aside, I don't blame anybody for getting us into this war, the whole house supported it, and agreed to keep their mission out of politics for the duration. Good for them, especially the NDP, for whom it's been hard. I think we are there for the wrong reasons, and to make up for shirking in other respects earlier. At this point, I want the mission to end, myself. I wonder if there's any believable goals anymore. I think we can feel good about what we tried to do, but we recognize that a lot of our NATO partners are shirkers, too. We should start thinking about defending Canada the post Cold War world. We should wake up, and get out of any alliance which obligates us to defend other nations when there is little likelihood that those nations would help defend us.

[August1991]

What a dumb thread, based on bad math. From the OP:

The Canadian military is looking for savings of more than $190 million by March to help pay for the Harper government's defence strategy.

...

A recently released report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, done in conjunction with the Rideau Institute, determined that, for the fiscal year that ends in March, Canada will have spent just over $21 billion on national defence. That's nearly 10 per cent of all federal spending.

$190 million of $21 billion is about 1% of spending. Surely the Canadian military can find this saving, after all the money they have received recently.

Now, assuming the CCPA is accurate, I have a better question. Why does our federal government spend about $210 billion? On what? The CCPA doesn't say.

I also think our national media has done a dismal job of reporting the war, most not all but most of the Canadian media fly into kanadar and never leave the wire, instead rely on HQ after action reports given each night in front of the press, or from returning soldiers who for the most part don't really trust the media, or respect them enough....

AG, welcome to the modern world. Live with it.

The good things government can do are rarely appreciated. And the bad things are repeated endlessly.

Edited January 3, 2010 by August1991

[Smallc]

$210B is quickly eaten up by the Federal Equalization Program, the Offshore Accords, the Canada Health Transfer, the Canada Social Transfer, the Territorial Financing Formula, the Building Canada Plan, the Economic Action Plan, the Crown Corporations that lose money, and departmental spending (Heritage, Public Safety, Citizenship and Immigration, Finance, Health, National Defence, Fisheries and Oceans, Environment, DFAIT, CIDA, etc, etc.).

There area great many priorities for government, especially the federal government of a G8 and G20 country.

Edited January 3, 2010 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Sure, only a fraction goes to the troops, but our forces are better equipped now than they've been for two or three decades.

According to NATO, 40% of the budget this year was projected to go to personnel (that probably includes both the military and DND civilian employees).

[waldo]

at least you appear equal opportunity with your 'feckless ideological' labeling... just what kind of 'military aspect war' coverage are/were you expecting? You appear to support the, as you say, "mission"... and yet, you question its futility and pointlessness based on your perception of media coverage. Media coverage? Really? You mean a little more rah rah patriotic drum beating from the media is all that's keeping Canadian combat troops from being extended beyond 2011?

apparently, one of the latest national polls suggests the media is anything but feckless in getting your described ideological message out there... or... the Harper Conservatives have done a remarkable job in failing to bring your preferred message across. 84% want Canadian combat troops withdrawn from Afghanistan... 51% before 2011

Why couldn't the media ever, even once, give us illustrations of the kind of 'work' our troops were doing? Why couldn't they help us to understand the terrain, and the objectives of the mission? Its because the news is being collected as part of a narrative that depends on stressing the cost in blood, and ignoring the benefit.

You tell me ... how were we going to understand the meaning of this struggle. The tide turned and the media never told us. We don't even know how this war went. They report from 'sources', or they're at the airport, waiting to get pictures of the ramp ceremony.

I don't require rah-rah coverage, but do I have to suffer 1960ies style anti-war propagandizing parading as news coverage all over again? Can you deny what I say? No wonder people are vulnerable to worrying that, with Obama's election, the effort has been wasted. It will probably end up being a bargaining chip, thrown in, along with Israel, to try to cajole the Mullah's of Iran.

====================================

Angus Reid aside, I don't blame anybody for getting us into this war, the whole house supported it, and agreed to keep their mission out of politics for the duration. Good for them, especially the NDP, for whom it's been hard. I think we are there for the wrong reasons, and to make up for shirking in other respects earlier. At this point, I want the mission to end, myself. I wonder if there's any believable goals anymore. I think we can feel good about what we tried to do, but we recognize that a lot of our NATO partners are shirkers, too. We should start thinking about defending Canada the post Cold War world. We should wake up, and get out of any alliance which obligates us to defend other nations when there is little likelihood that those nations would help defend us.

perhaps remove your selective blinders on what media coverage there has been - most of what I recall is anything but "1960's style anti-war propagandizing parading as news coverage"... perhaps you could offer examples of same and we could put them in perspective to what came forward from the Harper Conservative Ministers of War Propagandizing.

setting aside what the actual concept of embedded journalists means to unbiased journalism, apparently, the Canadian Forces maintains one of the most liberal and most utilized policies toward embedding journalists. If you have trouble with their reporting from "behind the wire" perhaps you might question the policy (guidelines/restrictions)... notwithstanding the overall lack of security that keeps the journalists "behind that wire"... notwithstanding the actual cost for news agencies to embed journalists.

this 2006 article relates to a freedom of information request... speaks directly to the heavy utilization of the embedding program, speaks directly to the conflicts some countries military has with embedding journalists, particularly the Canadian Forces policy/program... and yet, you blame the messenger?

We consider our client to be the Canadian public, and we aim for maximum transparency," he said, acknowledging the policy rankles some coalition partners.

Even so, the 15 openings in the Canadian embed program are booked solid and it has become the largest and busiest in Afghanistan, outpacing the U.S., British and Dutch programs.

Between mid-January and the end of November, 175 journalists from 37 media outlets have embedded with the 2,500 Canadian soldiers headquartered in Kandahar, military statistics show.

On average, 13 journalists embed each week, and each journalist's stay at Kandahar Airfield is 25 days. Ten different broadcast and print media are represented at any one time

this (yesterday's) article, offers a veteran journalists perspective:

Critics argue that embedded journalists risk their objectivity by living with soldiers and depending on their protection, and that embedding gives reporters only a controlled view of what was happening.

The same argument can be made about political reporters on campaign buses or sports writers following their home teams, yet nobody seems to have problems with them.

The fact is that reporting from almost any conflict zone requires journalists to rely on the protection of one or another armed group. Whether travelling in Afghanistan with Northern Alliance soldiers in 2001, or trekking through the Sahara with Darfur rebels, I had to rely on other people's skill and firepower to survive.

And they all tried to control the message. It was my job to get past that. Yes, embedded reporters get only a small piece of the jigsaw puzzle. But it is the job of the editors and producers at home to make sure that other reporters fill in the blanks.

The embedding process has also allowed Canadian journalists to fill in a huge collective blind spot: Their knowledge of Canadian Forces.

Lang was the first Canadian reporter to die in Afghanistan but many others have had very close calls. Her death raises important questions about the future of Canadian media activities in Afghanistan.

Covering the war in Afghanistan is an enormous burden -- both financially and in human resources -- for the already struggling Canadian media. Most Canadian media don't have dedicated foreign correspondents. So journalists whose usual beats involve covering health care or courts have to step into the breach. All Canadian reporters in Afghanistan volunteer for their assignments.

Most reporters rotate in and out on a monthly basis. The costs of insuring and training each one runs into tens of thousands of dollars. Add to this transportation costs along with salaries for local translators, fixers, drivers and security personnel, and you're looking at tens of thousands more.

With mounting costs, deteriorating security that forces Canadian reporters to spend most of their time cooped up inside the Kandahar air base, and an increasingly skeptical Canadian public, somebody is bound to ask: "Is it worth the trouble?"

[Army Guy]

AG, welcome to the modern world. Live with it.

The good things government can do are rarely appreciated. And the bad things are repeated endlessly.

I do or rather did while on tour, it's frustrating to watch these guys report the same shit only because they won't leave the wire....After all they have a job to do as well as anybody else....reporting from inside the wire from a prepared military after action report is not reporting....but rather recyling something they could do over a sat phone.

As for our government and how it does things your right...maybe someone should try and change something....

[Army Guy]

setting aside what the actual concept of embedded journalists means to unbiased journalism, apparently, the Canadian Forces maintains one of the most liberal and most utilized policies toward embedding journalists. If you have trouble with their reporting from "behind the wire" perhaps you might question the policy (guidelines/restrictions)... notwithstanding the overall lack of security that keeps the journalists "behind that wire"... notwithstanding the actual cost for news agencies to embed journalists.

So which rules restricts a reporter from going outside the wire,I can't find them, nor does it say that reporters will be confined to Inside the wire....I want to make a note here as well most reporters not all stay inside the camp....

A reporter goes through alot of training and expenses as you've said to just get into camp....pity most blow this and stay in camp...and get they're news fed to them....

Nothing will keep a journalist safer than traveling with atleast a platoon size unit of grunts....in heavily armoured vehs...they've used the "Canadians need to know and have a right to know first hand" comment to get access to Afghan....and they piss it away, by getting second or third hand knowledge of events..We demand more from our troops why can't we demand more from our journalist ....

[waldo]

So which rules restricts a reporter from going outside the wire,I can't find them, nor does it say that reporters will be confined to Inside the wire....I want to make a note here as well most reporters not all stay inside the camp....

A reporter goes through alot of training and expenses as you've said to just get into camp....pity most blow this and stay in camp...and get they're news fed to them....

Nothing will keep a journalist safer than traveling with atleast a platoon size unit of grunts....in heavily armoured vehs...they've used the "Canadians need to know and have a right to know first hand" comment to get access to Afghan....and they piss it away, by getting second or third hand knowledge of events..We demand more from our troops why can't we demand more from our journalist ....

short of general safety concerns (i.e. lack of security) "outside the wire"... this instruction from the CF document I linked to, would appear, to me, to suggest that reporters movements are subject to approvals... "as determined by the Commander JTF-Afg".

Journalists’ Access to Operations

24. Journalists will be given access to operational missions, including mission preparations and debriefings, whenever possible, as determined by the Commander JTF-Afg.

in terms of the alternative... the, as you say, "getting their news fed to them", my understanding is that the feeding comes directly from the CF military. Are you suggesting that particular "spoon feeding" is suspect, in itself? In any case, given the voluminous ground rules stated within that CF document I linked to, I'm hard pressed to understand exactly what reporters are left to write about... while presuming to hold to some degree of objectivity.

expecting more of journalists seems at odds with a scenario where a newspaper beat reporter covering health care one day, can suddenly find herself blown apart while rotating in for a short few months embedding cycle.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

According to NATO, 40% of the budget this year was projected to go to personnel (that probably includes both the military and DND civilian employees).

I wish this nation would wake up and smell the napalm. We are at war, our soldiers lives are at risk. This damned government needs to grow a pair and institute a tax to cover the expense, period. No ifs ands or buts, just get the money to protect our soldiers and fund their efforts. Its past time to worry about the damned cost! What price can we put on the lives of those that stand to defend us, they are priceless! This penny pinching , budget crap is what stands between us and a successful mission. We sent them there with the intent to do some good. So why do we hamstring them in the process? Its disgusting and we need to do something about it.

[Army Guy]

short of general safety concerns (i.e. lack of security) "outside the wire"... this instruction from the CF document I linked to, would appear, to me, to suggest that reporters movements are subject to approvals... "as determined by the Commander JTF-Afg".

They are after part of and under the control on the JTF task force commander , however this is only one of the many ways to cover Afghan, one example of that is Scott taylor, who has on many occasions made his trip inside Afghan with any military help or assistance at all...

All that being said i've yet to hear any request for any media or inbedded media being turned down to go on operations with the troops...outside the wire...but that is a choice that these media people make, the military is going outside the wire with or without them. if they don't ask they don't go.

i

n terms of the alternative... the, as you say, "getting their news fed to them", my understanding is that the feeding comes directly from the CF military. Are you suggesting that particular "spoon feeding" is suspect, in itself? In any case, given the voluminous ground rules stated within that CF document I linked to, I'm hard pressed to understand exactly what reporters are left to write about... while presuming to hold to some degree of objectivity.

It comes from the military and our government , and although i don't think it is suspect i do think it's one sided and does not tell the entire story....which i believe is important and it is what i expect form the media coverage....i mean even i can spout the government message saving money, and as we,ve seen lives...I think that if they got outside the wire and reported things first hand "seen " the events that they are reporting on we would get a somewhat different view.

expecting more of journalists seems at odds with a scenario where a newspaper beat reporter covering health care one day, can suddenly find herself blown apart while rotating in for a short few months embedding cycle.

Like i said before she is one of the few, that went outside the wire, of the hundards that have covered the Afghan campaign...what i find frustrating is that alot of canadians will write off a soldiers opinion, casting it as the party line , they are supposed to say that ....and yet we have media types who refuse to go outside the wire cover the war from a first hand perspective, a perspective that Canadians are depending on for info on this war. NEXT to the soldiers jobs of fighting and dieing in this war the next most important is the media coverage, to keep Canadians well informed ...after all it is Canadians who will win or lose this conflict with their support or lack of it.

[Oleg Bach]

First we get the Iraqi mess - then irritation out of Iran - then Afghanistan - now Yemen pops into the picture..what are we going to do now? Maybe some effort and resourses can be put into place to find non-military solutions to these upheavels? You don't always win a fight by putting on the biggest iron fist money an buy and sock your advesary in the head - this has become intergenerational now..fathers and family that are killed in these conflicts breed replacements - there will be no end to it..violence breeds more violence. As an aging street fighter...I don't bother with violenced anymore - because - I know how to handle people with my mind and spirit - I suggest we all learn this art.