Canadian military

[Topaz]

By the following article, their view is that Canada's military has increased in personnel and expense to prepared for war. Now I know some Canadians want a strong and bigger military and with the harmonizing our Canadian military to the US,those are getting their wish. I can understand having a nilitary of some strength but are Canadians ready for "search and kill" expeditions tied to NATO and the US? Thoughts? After all, having a military means people are trained to kill, at least in these days. http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/07/27/yves-engler-militarism-on-rise-in-conservative-canada/

[Signals.Cpl]

By the following article, their view is that Canada's military has increased in personnel and expense to prepared for war. Now I know some Canadians want a strong and bigger military and with the harmonizing our Canadian military to the US,those are getting their wish. I can understand having a nilitary of some strength but are Canadians ready for "search and kill" expeditions tied to NATO and the US? Thoughts? After all, having a military means people are trained to kill, at least in these days. http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/07/27/yves-engler-militarism-on-rise-in-conservative-canada/

Having a military has ALWAYS meant people are trained to kill, otherwise it is just boy scouts with guns.

[waldo]

Having a military has ALWAYS meant people are trained to kill, otherwise it is just boy scouts with guns.

apparently, you couldn't see fit to actually speak to the article itself... on the rise of militarism in Harper's Conservative view of Canada.

speaking of the article's reference to Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Walter Natynczyk... and Harper's bent on 'force projection' for Canada's military:

but let's not loose an opportunity to really zero in on the master Harper Conservative strategy in regards those C-17s, hey?

Force projection - hee haw!

For the past two years, Canada has been quietly working to establish small military outposts in places such as the Caribbean, East Africa, Europe and Southeast Asia.

Now newly released Department of Defence documents show these operational support hubs are centered on a plan to deploy the military on more overseas missions - including combat and projecting Canadian power - than under previous governments.

Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Walter Natynczyk authorized the establishment of the operational support hubs in up to seven locations around the world on May 13, 2010.

A directive signed by Natynczyk and obtained by Postmedia News says the initiative was launched to improve the Canadian Forces' "ability to project combat power/security assistance and Canadian influence rapidly and flexibly anywhere in the world."

It adds that the ability to deploy and sustain combat forces is not only contingent on strong logistical networks, but is also "an essential instrument of national power and should continue to be exploited to attain national objectives."

The directive traces the operational support hub initiative directly back to 2007, when the Harper government acquired four massive C-17 Globemaster military transport planes.

"The decision to acquire four C-17s (CC177) for strategic airlift indicates the government's intention to utilize the CF more extensively off continent," it reads.

more perspective... on that missed Harper Conservative opportunity in Iraq... a quite cherubic Harper showcasing his want... to get-it-on!:

a very proud moment for Chretien... for Canada.

as the linked OP article references, the Harper Conservative's spent, "$850,000 on a nationally televised celebration for Canada’s military heroes" in the "Libyan campaign"... which really pales in comparison to the $28 million Harper Conservatives are spending on the War of 1812 bicentennial celebrations!

let's not forget Libya!!!

[g_bambino]

Canada's military has increased in personnel and expense to prepared for war.

Um....

y 2014-15, $1.1-billion will be slashed from the roughly $20-billion defence budget – just over 5 per cent. In addition, the government will delay the purchase of $3.5-billion in equipment for seven years, allowing it to trim hundreds of millions of dollars more each year.

Defence budgets are now going down, and combined with a $1-billion cut to spending growth announced two years ago, the military faces years of scaling back.

The cuts to the annual budget will get deeper in each of the next three years, starting with a $327-million reduction in the coming year and reaching $1.1-billion by 2014-15.

The government is also backing off its target of increasing the size of the Canadian Forces to a regular force of 70,000 and 30,000 reserves, but the budget committed to maintaining the current, slightly smaller force of 68,000 regulars and 27,000 reserves.

Deep cuts to military mark reversal for Harper

[waldo]

Um....

paper... cuts; particularly when costing for protracted commitments, or stated procurement delays, will be booked in the budgets of future governments.

In all, the defence budget for the rest of Mr. Harper’s term will be billions less than the $21.2-billion spent last year. The cuts won’t bring the defence budget back to the level it was at when Mr. Harper took office, Mr. Perry noted, but they will undo a significant part of the increases.

It’s not clear, however, precisely how much that defence budget sum will be, because the government refused to provide a figure for the total defence budget in the coming year or future years affected by the budget.

Before the budget, the Defence Department reported in government estimates that it would spend $19.8-billion in the 2012-13 fiscal year, and a spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay said that amount will now be reduced to $19.5-billion.

[g_bambino]

paper... cuts

Yes, the budget is generally documented on paper and, contrary to what the OP of this thread states, the military is set to contract, not expand.

[Moonbox]

paper... cuts; particularly when costing for protracted commitments, or stated procurement delays, will be booked in the budgets of future governments.

Not just for the military. This is true for everything the government does. It might look great on paper balancing the budget, but sometimes this comes at the cost of crumbling infrastructure which ends up being even more expensive when it finally can't wait any longer.

Flaherty's brilliant magic selling off the 407 is a good example of this type of thinking. Chretien with the Canadian military in the 1990's is another.

Edited July 27, 2012 by Moonbox

[Moonbox]

please delete

Edited July 27, 2012 by Moonbox

[login]

The OPer's question immediately had me question the cost issue 100+ million for Libya etc.. My thoughts on the question are that total alignment with US defence policy is not in the interest of Canada or Canadians. Part of the reason for cost infeasability is that US companies own the manufacture and intellectual rights to the technologies, and only the US government benefits on the profits of those companies. There is no expenditures incentive to Canadians to give work to Americans and wealthy industrialsts south of the border. If Canada were to mirror US defence policy a Canadian Patriot Act for Buy Canadian would be required, as well as heavy support of Canadian Industries and employment as opposed to US based purchases. Also Canadian Climate is not the same as US climate. Canada had few if any enemies aside from NATO which was engineered to the defeat of the USSR.

All in all I don't think it is fair to the tax payers to eat up 30% or more of their tax dollars to fund US employment and industries for US wars.

Now should Canada make a section of its forces available for NATO missions, sure if it is a member of NATO. However it is a great diservice to sacrifice Canadian defence and economic well being in the process. It is of far greater economic benefit for Canada to send Canadians to the US to train if the idea of a Canadian Military is to be a satalite of the US.

Canadian Defence Policy should be based around Northern resource development, a merchant marine, secure delivery of government agencies such as through communications infrastrucutre upkeep, the postal service, and civil service.

A strong Canadian Militia needs to be supported, in allowing people a tax deduction for purchase of military equipment such as arms ammunition body armour and other equipment. People should also be able to indicate tax funding for military or no funding for military on their tax forms so that conscientious objectors such as Mennonites and the Amish are exempt from practices contrary to their religious beleifs.

Attacking others cause we can, is not moral, it should be that it is for defence. Dialogue is what is required for all else. If there is no jepordy to our defence it should not be an object. NATO in Afghanistan is just mind boggling. Attacking others is only going to get others to attack you.

I'm not in beleif of preemptive defence. The fact is people blamed for 911's attacks were Saudi's who lived in the US and Germany, people can train to be terrorists anywhere, afterall homegrown terrorists is why we live in a police state today.

It is just not smoothly thought out. The Arab Spring Operations and the offshoot in Syria is just representative of that. It isn't about defence it is about politics, and national politics should be left that way, Imperialism is a great diservice to those it consumes. Rule by Force is uncivilized. We need rule by ratious dialogue and agreement.

[Signals.Cpl]

apparently, you couldn't see fit to actually speak to the article itself... on the rise of militarism in Harper's Conservative view of Canada.

Rebuilding what the liberals almost destroyed??

speaking of the article's reference to Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Walter Natynczyk... and Harper's bent on 'force projection' for Canada's military:

Gives us more freedom to act with or without the US

more perspective... on that missed Harper Conservative opportunity in Iraq... a quite cherubic Harper showcasing his want... to get-it-on!:

And yet with all the posturing and insulting that was done, CF members still ended up in Iraq.

as the linked OP article references, the Harper Conservative's spent, "$850,000 on a nationally televised celebration for Canada’s military heroes" in the "Libyan campaign"... which really pales in comparison to the $28 million Harper Conservatives are spending on the War of 1812 bicentennial celebrations!

So what? We need a reminder of our history. How much did Layton's funeral cost?

[waldo]

Rebuilding what the liberals almost destroyed??

how does it feel to be used by Harper Conservatives? Just what have they actually delivered/procured... in relative terms to promises that are now being rescinded, delayed or outright ignored? But military 'support the troops' posturing sure sells down on the farm, hey?

Gives us more freedom to act with or without the US

without the U.S.? Oh please... who let the poodle out... with such a bark?

And yet with all the posturing and insulting that was done, CF members still ended up in Iraq.

beat upon through many past MLW threads... a few token exchange personnel - 50 at most??? Don't bother resurrecting this nonsense in this thread - you've derailed more than enough threads already.

So what? We need a reminder of our history. How much did Layton's funeral cost?

$28 million to "celebrate" the War of 1812 bicentennial! Really? Almost a million to stage a Parliament flyover! Really?

as for Layton's funeral, it is always reassuring to see someone resort to nonsensical thrashing about when military costs are questioned/challenged. Since you brought it up, what did Layton's funeral cost Canada - and why did Harper offer a state funeral? Please share the relevance of this gem you offer for comparative reference.

[g_bambino]

as for Layton's funeral, it is always reassuring to see someone resort to nonsensical thrashing about when military costs are questioned/challenged

The $28 million for the commemoration of the War of 1812 isn't a military cost. Perhaps you shouldn't thrash about so much trying to look for costs where there are none?

[waldo]

The $28 million for the commemoration of the War of 1812 isn't a military cost. Perhaps you shouldn't thrash about so much trying to look for costs where there are none?

ancillary costs - see, 'the rise of militarism in Harper's Conservative view of Canada'

[Smallc]

ancillary costs - see, 'the rise of militarism in Harper's Conservative view of Canada'

No admission of ignorance, then?

[waldo]

No admission of ignorance, then?

no - not required. Perhaps you'd like to offer a token comment spin separating war celebrations from the rise of Harper Conservative militarism... perhaps even show line item costing to highlight just which department(s) budgets the monies came/are coming from - that would be a nice touch.

[g_bambino]

ancillary costs - see, 'the rise of militarism in Harper's Conservative view of Canada'

By that rationale, all those Remembrance Day ceremonies and D-Day anniversaries between 1945 and 1957, 1963 and 1984 (we'll forget the Clark cabinet for now), and 1993 and 2006, were emblematic of the centrality of militarism in the Liberal view of Canada. You sure you want to stick with that?

[ed.: corr.]

Edited July 27, 2012 by g_bambino

[waldo]

By that rationale, all those Remembrance Day ceremonies and D-Day anniversaries between 1945 and 1957, 1963 and 1984 (we'll forget the Clark cabinet for now), and 1993 and 2006, were emblematic of the centrality of militarism in the Liberal view of Canada. You sure you want to stick with that?

[ed.: corr.]

by that rationale, you'd like to sully the genuine remembrance of war dead over a pompous War of 1812 history recall, particularly one done while hundreds of civil servants are losing their jobs and Harper Conservatives are touting (self-serving) fiscal austerity. Let's not forget some of the actual spending cuts going on, and the kinds of ideological driven priorities Harper Conservatives are making... while spending that $28 million dollars. You sure you want to stick with that?

[Signals.Cpl]

how does it feel to be used by Harper Conservatives? Just what have they actually delivered/procured... in relative terms to promises that are now being rescinded, delayed or outright ignored? But military 'support the troops' posturing sure sells down on the farm, hey?

A lot less broken promises than the Liberals, a lot more delivered to the troops than any government in the last 30-40 years.

without the U.S.? Oh please... who let the poodle out... with such a bark?

We can go to a lot more places, and be more independent.

beat upon through many past MLW threads... a few token exchange personnel - 50 at most??? Don't bother resurrecting this nonsense in this thread - you've derailed more than enough threads already.

Exchange to RM, British Army, US Army, RCN assets in the Persian Gulf who assisted the USN, hundreds of CF personnel posted to USCENTCOM, thousands of Army Reserve soldiers being enemy force for American troops deploying to Iraq.

$28 million to "celebrate" the War of 1812 bicentennial! Really? Almost a million to stage a Parliament flyover! Really?

It;s our history, part of what makes us Canadian.

as for Layton's funeral, it is always reassuring to see someone resort to nonsensical thrashing about when military costs are questioned/challenged. Since you brought it up, what did Layton's funeral cost Canada - and why did Harper offer a state funeral? Please share the relevance of this gem you offer for comparative reference.

I don't know why he offered a state funeral to a nobody, he was the PM and he made the decision. As for the cost, I really want to know, but it seems that when its questioning any government expenditure it is perfectly legitimate to demand and criticize but when asking for the cost of the funeral for the Dear Leader it is nonsensical. I see more value to Canadians knowing our history and celebrating said history than paying for the state funeral of someone who did not deserve one.

[Signals.Cpl]

by that rationale, you'd like to sully the genuine remembrance of war dead over a pompous War of 1812 history recall, particularly one done while hundreds of civil servants are losing their jobs and Harper Conservatives are touting (self-serving) fiscal austerity. Let's not forget some of the actual spending cuts going on, and the kinds of ideological driven priorities Harper Conservatives are making... while spending that $28 million dollars. You sure you want to stick with that?

Those civil servants are loosing their jobs because their jobs are no longer required.

[waldo]

So what? We need a reminder of our history. How much did Layton's funeral cost?

as for Layton's funeral, it is always reassuring to see someone resort to nonsensical thrashing about when military costs are questioned/challenged. Since you brought it up, what did Layton's funeral cost Canada - and why did Harper offer a state funeral? Please share the relevance of this gem you offer for comparative reference.

I don't know why he offered a state funeral to a nobody, he was the PM and he made the decision. As for the cost, I really want to know, but it seems that when its questioning any government expenditure it is perfectly legitimate to demand and criticize but when asking for the cost of the funeral for the Dear Leader it is nonsensical. I see more value to Canadians knowing our history and celebrating said history than paying for the state funeral of someone who did not deserve one.

so now you double-down on your juvenile tirade by calling the late Jack Layton a 'nobody' and labeling him as, 'Dear Leader'. What's beyond sensible is you dredging up a death, a funeral and associated costs... simply because your sensitivities can't accept legitimate criticism/challenge to military (and ancillary) costs. If the Layton funeral costs so trouble you I trust you will carry through and contact the Harper Conservative PMO to ascertain just how much money the state funeral cost Canada... I suggest you also register your concern over Harper agreeing to spend the monies associated with the funeral. Make sure to update MLW in an appropriate thread - perhaps even start up a new dedicated thread for maximum effect - thanks in advance.

[waldo]

how does it feel to be used by Harper Conservatives? Just what have they actually delivered/procured... in relative terms to promises that are now being rescinded, delayed or outright ignored? But military 'support the troops' posturing sure sells down on the farm, hey?

A lot less broken promises than the Liberals, a lot more delivered to the troops than any government in the last 30-40 years.

this was... is... your chance to showcase just what's been delivered. Let's have you substantiate that ~20+ billion a year being spent on the Canadian military... inquiring minds are relying upon you!

[waldo]

We can go to a lot more places, and be more independent.

you mean... project force? Independent of... others? Oh my!

[waldo]

Those civil servants are loosing their jobs because their jobs are no longer required.

no - see ideological driven Harper Conservative prioritization. Interesting in that, apparently, given the negative international focus on some of the idiotic cuts, Harper Conservatives are beginning to, 'walk some of it back'... I guess that means the related jobs are still required, hey?

[waldo]

It;s our history, part of what makes us Canadian.

nothing showcases your trumped up talking point better than having Harper Conservative Defense Minister Peter MacKay fumble his War of 1812 history lesson. Uhhh... do you actually know which side the French were on?

(Does the MacKay fumble make him less a Canadian? )

[Signals.Cpl]

so now you double-down on your juvenile tirade by calling the late Jack Layton a 'nobody' and labeling him as, 'Dear Leader'.

He was the the GG nor was he the PM...guess what he wasn't even a Cabinet Minister he was nobody deserving or needing a state funeral. Its funny how you can insult conservatives left,right and centre but god forbid someone dislike Layton. As for the Dear Leader...that is well deserved.

What's beyond sensible is you dredging up a death, a funeral and associated costs... simply because your sensitivities can't accept legitimate criticism/challenge to military (and ancillary) costs.

You seem to be the one who cannot accept criticism, all I'm asking is what was the cost for the funeral and what did it do for Canada? The 1812 bicentennial is and important historical event that shaped our country, while Layton's death and subsequent state funeral did not do anything to shape or improve Canada, it was simply a political move sort of a pacifier for the NDP.