Liberals to slash military spending

[Scotty]

Former Chief of Defense Rich Hillier called Chretien's time in office the "decade of darkness" when spending cuts and neglect drove the military to the verge of obsolescence. Now it's looking very much like Michael Ignatieff wants to imitate Chretien - and Trudeau before him. Many have noted the Liberals' abrupt shift leftwards into heavy social spending and higher taxation, but aside from his opposition to the new fighter aircraft few have noted what this means for the military.

It is evident from the platform released on Sunday that Michael Ignatieff favours a return to the decades of Liberal practice under Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien, which oversaw the slow but persistent erosion of Canada’s military, to the point of international embarrassment. We lacked troops, we lacked equipment, we lacked influence. Canadian soldiers heading overseas had to hitch rides on foreign aircraft. We couldn’t deliver our own equipment on aid missions.

Liberals' Hidden Agenda on Military

[Evening Star]

Does this mean we won't be able to continue participating in Afghanistan and Libya and similar missions in the future? If so, I'm all for it.

[ToadBrother]

Does this mean we won't be able to continue participating in Afghanistan and Libya and similar missions in the future? If so, I'm all for it.

And when the Russians and the Danes start parking flags on the continental shelf of the Arctic Ocean, and we can't adaquately maintain surveillance of our coast lines, which are among the longest of any nation on the planet, I'm sure I'll feel better knowing the the Taliban and Gaddafi are safe to terrorize the populations they control because of our insignificant armed forces.

Edited April 5, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Sailor]

Notearsshedhere.

As long as our troops have the armor they need and gear that works, we're all good.

[Evening Star]

And when the Russians and the Danes start parking flags on the continental shelf of the Arctic Ocean, and we can't adaquately maintain surveillance of our coast lines, which are among the longest of any nation on the planet, I'm sure I'll feel better knowing the the Taliban and Gaddafi are safe to terrorize the populations they control because of our insignificant armed forces.

Yeah, I was kind of being a douche, sorry. I do actually think we should maintain a military strong enough for the purposes you mention as well as for some international missions. I just think that some of our current priorities should be reconsidered. (If I felt sure that our intervention was doing a great deal to protect human rights in those countries, I'd be the first to support it btw.)

Edited April 5, 2011 by Evening Star

[ToadBrother]

Yeah, I was kind of being a douche, sorry. I do actually think we should maintain a military strong enough for the purposes you mention as well as for some international missions. I just think that some of our current priorities should be reconsidered.

As much as you may hate Afghanistan and Libya, what we are doing, whatever the political dimension, is producing a core of battle-hardened officers who will be leading the Canadian Armed Forces over the next few decades. Putting aside what anyone may think of our involvement in these campaigns, from a purely military angle, producing these kinds of officers is a tremendous asset.

(If I felt sure that our intervention was doing a great deal to protect human rights in those countries, I'd be the first to support it btw.)

The problem in Afghanistan, at least, is that the humanitarian aspect was probably oversold. The real purpose was to make sure Afghanistan wouldn't continue to be a base of operations for Al Qaeda. It's largely worked, too, though unfortunately the buggers have started operating out of Yemen and Somalia instead.

As to Libya, I simply can't imagine why anyone is shedding any tears over Gaddafi's imminent defeat. The man is a monster, and if we don't do something, neighboring Arab countries and Europe are going to find themselves having to find shelt for hundreds of thousands of refugees.

Edited April 5, 2011 by ToadBrother

[Chippewa]

Does this mean we won't be able to continue participating in Afghanistan and Libya and similar missions in the future? If so, I'm all for it.

Couldn't have said it any better.

Why buy the cow when the milk is free. I am refering to the U.S.A. They have all the armed forces North America needs. And Canada has no place in the world invading and occupying foreign countries, when they cant even get there own country right first.

[ToadBrother]

Couldn't have said it any better.

Why buy the cow when the milk is free. I am refering to the U.S.A. They have all the armed forces North America needs. And Canada has no place in the world invading and occupying foreign countries, when they cant even get there own country right first.

A guy who believes we should be asking the nearest native tribe for permission to live here wants to basically turn us into a military protectorate of the United States? Consistency isn't your strong suit.

[RNG]

As much as you may hate Afghanistan and Libya, what we are doing, whatever the political dimension, is producing a core of battle-hardened officers who will be leading the Canadian Armed Forces over the next few decades. Putting aside what anyone may think of our involvement in these campaigns, from a purely military angle, producing these kinds of officers is a tremendous asset.

The problem in Afghanistan, at least, is that the humanitarian aspect was probably oversold. The real purpose was to make sure Afghanistan wouldn't continue to be a base of operations for Al Qaeda. It's largely worked, too, though unfortunately the buggers have started operating out of Yemen and Somalia instead.

As to Libya, I simply can't imagine why anyone is shedding any tears over Gaddafi's imminent defeat. The man is a monster, and if we don't do something, neighboring Arab countries and Europe are going to find themselves having to find shelt for hundreds of thousands of refugees.

Like it or not, they are barbarians and we can't, in a few years bring them out of that. I really think we should get out, and control the AQ types et al with Predators and Tommahawks. Yes, Canada should either help pay for some of that or buy some of our own Preditors (O/E), but being there is just dumb. Bummer for the poor folk and females over there, but we didn't do it.

[Chippewa]

A guy who believes we should be asking the nearest native tribe for permission to live here wants to basically turn us into a military protectorate of the United States? Consistency isn't your strong suit.

If you understood the United Nations Declaration, then maybe you might agree with me. Read Article 15, and understand the Nation to Nation relationship in any treaties made by the British Crown.

You might want to read first.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

Canada has no real military anyways is all im saying. Why does Canada Corporation waste money on toys they don't need, especially when the U.S.A has N.O.R.A.D and few others to protect from nuclear war or foreign attacks. The only army the need is the United Nations.

Its not just a "tribe", they are "Nations" with languages, and culture, just like any other places in the world you might call countrys.

[punked]

Does this mean we won't be able to continue participating in Afghanistan and Libya and similar missions in the future? If so, I'm all for it.

Last time I checked the Liberals sent our men and women to Afghanistan after cutting them down to nothing for 10 years, then turned around and asked why they were dying.

I think Canada could do with out a military however I think if we have one I want them to have the best. Otherwise we send young men and women off to die without doing all we can to prevent it.

Maybe you would have a point if the Liberals were pacifistic but they aren't, they send our military off to war after cutting them to nothing.

I think the NDP are the best option here.

[ToadBrother]

Last time I checked the Liberals sent our men and women to Afghanistan after cutting them down to nothing for 10 years, then turned around and asked why they were dying.

I think Canada could do with out a military however I think if we have one I want them to have the best. Otherwise we send young men and women off to die without doing all we can to prevent it.

Maybe you would have a point if the Liberals were pacifistic but they aren't, they send our military off to war after cutting them to nothing.

I think the NDP are the best option here.

The NDP have the benefit of never having had any real say in government when Canada has entered military operations. It's easy to be a pacifist when you'll never have the opportunity to put anyone in the line of fire.

[M.Dancer]

It's appropriate to mention that the NDPs long standing antipathy to NATO....they would withdraw us from collective defence ( I thought they liked collectives?>) but not up our defence spending ten times to accommodate our military nakedness....

[punked]

The NDP have the benefit of never having had any real say in government when Canada has entered military operations. It's easy to be a pacifist when you'll never have the opportunity to put anyone in the line of fire.

I think it is pretty easy to keep the troops home, the hard decision is sending them away from their families off to a country where no one likes and where they shouldn't be in the first place. It is a hard decision mostly because it is the wrong decision to make.

[punked]

It's appropriate to mention that the NDPs long standing antipathy to NATO....they would withdraw us from collective defence ( I thought they liked collectives?>) but not up our defence spending ten times to accommodate our military nakedness....

I can only speak for myself but I think if we are going to have armed forces they should be trained, equipped, and treated the best. They serve with out being asked, put their life on the line and we treat them like they are garbage when they leave. I support out troops and Veterans respect and honor them, I just think we need to have a grown up discussion on what their role should be if their is one at all.

I think the Pat Stogran, a retired Canadian Forces colonel and former veterans' ombudsman would agree the NDP are the party who have been saying this.

Edited April 6, 2011 by punked

[Scotty]

Does this mean we won't be able to continue participating in Afghanistan and Libya and similar missions in the future? If so, I'm all for it.

No, it means we'll go, well, not 'we', but our soldiers will go, with crappy equipment, just like they did under Chretien.

[Saipan]

No, it means we'll go, well, not 'we', but our soldiers will go, with crappy equipment, just like they did under Chretien.

and throughout history until now.

[RNG]

No, it means we'll go, well, not 'we', but our soldiers will go, with crappy equipment, just like they did under Chretien.

Not nearly enough, but Harper did get our military some decent equipment. C-17's, C-130J's, lots of good stuff. Unfortunate that a country our size can only man 2500 troups, but by all metrics they punch above their weight class. We should all be proud of them, whether you agree with the mission or not.

[WWWTT]

The NDP have the benefit of never having had any real say in government when Canada has entered military operations. It's easy to be a pacifist when you'll never have the opportunity to put anyone in the line of fire.

I believe the NDP policy is to pull out of NATO and use the military for Canadas defence.

Whats wrong with that.

Switzerland uses its military for strictly this purpose and does not belong to any such afiliation and does not have an aggresive foriegn policy.Aswell they have never bein invaded in 700 years.Absolutely ridiculous for a European country.

There military is very large in comparison but strictly domestic.

The USA at one time before WW2 had a home defence first policy aswell.I have even heard a strong argument that this policy helped the USA focus its energy on domestic issues to make it the world power house it once was and post WW2 policies started to unravel this.

When is Canada going to focus on Canada first?

WWWTT

[bush_cheney2004]

Switzerland uses its military for strictly this purpose and does not belong to any such afiliation and does not have an aggresive foriegn policy.Aswell they have never bein invaded in 700 years.Absolutely ridiculous for a European country.

Switzerland deployed troops to Afghanistan until 2008.

The USA at one time before WW2 had a home defence first policy aswell.I have even heard a strong argument that this policy helped the USA focus its energy on domestic issues to make it the world power house it once was and post WW2 policies started to unravel this.

Very wrong....the US invaded many nations in the Americas, occupied The Philippines, and fought in WWI.

Edited April 6, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

I have even heard a strong argument that this policy helped the USA focus its energy on domestic issues to make it the world power house it once was and post WW2 policies started to unravel this.

Blatantly false. US power and influence continued to increase after WWII and only reached its zenith in the 90s.

[Battletoads]

Does this mean we will pull out of the god forsaken wasteland of afghanistan? If so I'm on board.

[Oleg Bach]

The liberal army of oppresion expect the conservatves to slash military spending - so they can have the money to wage their type of war on the population. Better to bomb Libya than to drop more bombs filled with more social engineering and more open immigration policies that will further internally displace established Canadians - For God's sake - even the newly arrived immigrant does not want more immigration - the pie is cut up and devided enough. Liberals want to save the world - lets save our national family first!

[Evening Star]

As much as you may hate Afghanistan and Libya, what we are doing, whatever the political dimension, is producing a core of battle-hardened officers who will be leading the Canadian Armed Forces over the next few decades. Putting aside what anyone may think of our involvement in these campaigns, from a purely military angle, producing these kinds of officers is a tremendous asset.

That's probably true but I don't think that even the most hawkish Republican would claim that to be a justification for going to war.

The problem in Afghanistan, at least, is that the humanitarian aspect was probably oversold. The real purpose was to make sure Afghanistan wouldn't continue to be a base of operations for Al Qaeda. It's largely worked, too, though unfortunately the buggers have started operating out of Yemen and Somalia instead.

Was that the mission? How long will it take before that's secure enough that we can leave? We've been there since 2003.

As to Libya, I simply can't imagine why anyone is shedding any tears over Gaddafi's imminent defeat. The man is a monster, and if we don't do something, neighboring Arab countries and Europe are going to find themselves having to find shelt for hundreds of thousands of refugees.

I'm not shedding tears for Gaddafi. I'm just not sure that the situation justifies Canada going into war: The long-term objectives don't seem clear enough; I'm not sure the rebels we're supporting are going to be much better; I'm not sure that Canada's involvement is adding something that European and Arab countries can't handle themselves; it's an unfortunate situation but doesn't look so far like a humanitarian disaster on the scale of Bosnia or Rwanda. The North Vietnamese Communists and Saddam Hussein were also monsters but Canada was right to stay out of those conflicts.

I don't agree with the people who think we don't need a military, by the way.

[Evening Star]

Anyway, I was perhaps a little off-topic. Now that I've actually read the article (ha), I think I actually agree. This is what I tend to believe (not that I'm a military expert):

Although we’ve used the existing CF-18s in Libya and Kosovo, neither deployment was really necessary. We could have contributed to those conflicts in other ways. It’s a valid point: Canada is an enormous country and perhaps we should focus solely on protecting our own borders, building ships that can perform rescue duty, chase away illegal fishing vessels or escort occasional refugee ships. Rather than fighters, maybe we should spend the money on support aircraft, rescue helicopters and transport planes for humanitarian missions.

If the only wars we ever participate in are ones where we tag along with the US, it seems that our combat capabilities are always going to seem insignificant compared to theirs, fighters or no fighters. These other roles seem like more useful and appropriate ones for Canada to fill.