Canadian Military or Foreign Aid

[carepov]

A brief synopsis:

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol12/no1/68-shadwick-eng.asp

And a link for you to obtain a copy:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs/transformation-report-2011.page

When/if you get the report, pay heed to the mention of the RCAF’s planned Air Expeditionary Wing, a capability that will very much so include the F-35 (and the new Chinooks, Hercules & Globemasters lifters, UAVs and the eventual replacements for the CP-140s, CH-146s and Polaris tankers) as it’s focal point for operations decades ahead, built around our recent experiences in Afghanistan and Libya, well also borrowing from the Leslie’s suggestions on both streamlined logistics and C2.

Thanks, I had already found and read those two links.

""the explicit goal” to “identify areas where we could reduce overhead and improve efficiency and effectiveness [so as] to allow reinvestment from within for future operational capability despite constrained resources"

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol12/no1/68-shadwick-eng.asp

To me this means that the goal of the report was to: "reduce operating costs so that we have more money to buy stuff." And therefore Leslie was not looking at major spending on new ships and planes.

Sadly, it looks like Leslie's report is gathering dust so we are faced with a "double-whammy": increased operating costs AND increased equipment costs, and I fear that we are doomed to repeating the same pattern of asking Canadian soldiers to "make do" the next time they are called upon.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/08/14/john-ivison-f-35-purchase-may-force-conservatives-to-chop-infantry-battalion-from-cash-strapped-military/

Wouldn’t have had said problem if the Liberals didn’t cancel the original contract, then later selected a lemon.

Yes, you are correct. However there is plenty of blame that can be spread to CPC and military leaders:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/11/michael-byers-and-stewart-webb-a-government-blunder-teaches-us-how-not-to-buy-helicopters/

[Guest Derek L]

Thanks, I had already found and read those two links.

Then why did you ask for a link to the report?

To me this means that the goal of the report was to: "reduce operating costs so that we have more money to buy stuff." And therefore Leslie was not looking at major spending on new ships and planes.

If you can’t be bothered to either get a copy of the report, or even read the brief synopsis, I’m afraid I can’t waste anymore time with you:

The report consequently called for: (a) reducing the numbers of headquarters and staffs “by grouping like functions or accepting risk in the entire elimination of certain organizations;” ( reallocating approximately 3500 regular force personnel into those areas identified for future growth or investing the funds elsewhere; © demobilizing the number of full-time reservists back to a “baseline of approximately 4,500”; (d) “reducing by up to 30 [per cent] over several years the $2.7 billion spent on contractors, consultants and private service providers and investing the funds in future capital programmes” as outlined in the Canada First Defence Strategy; and (e) “reinvesting approximately 3,500 civil servants into higher priority activities or investing the funds elsewhere.” Numbered among “future investment areas” were “new people and capabilities for the Arctic, an air expeditionary wing, the Canadian Rangers, investments in cyber defence, space, special operations forces, deployable all-source intelligence centres, human intelligence, counter IED, nuclear/biological/chemical defence, returning sailors to sea, returning reserve supervisors from full-time headquarters employment to part-time leadership roles on the armoury floors, and deployable support personnel.”

Of which, the replacements for both the navy and air force are a part, in addition Leslie suggested investing in other areas outside of those specifically mentioned within the Canada First Defence Strategy.

Sadly, it looks like Leslie's report is gathering dust so we are faced with a "double-whammy": increased operating costs AND increased equipment costs, and I fear that we are doomed to repeating the same pattern of asking Canadian soldiers to "make do" the next time they are called upon.

Again both you and the National Post do not understand the concept of what’s being discussed……A "Battalion" is only an organizational definition of a group of soldiers………We have had 9 under strength "Battalions" since the Liberals reduced funding in the 90s and disbanded the CAR……

What is being discussed is disbanding one of these organizations, that has a top heavy headquarters, support & logistics staff, augmenties from the reserves and civilian DND employees, and putting the actual “teeth” from said disbanded "battalion" into the remaining ones to bring them to full strength, well reducing the “tail” on DND‘s books……..That is very much so what Leslie recommended, and it will likely go even further.

Yes, you are correct. However there is plenty of blame that can be spread to CPC and military leaders:

No, and I don’t need an editorial to explain the program……I’ve been there and bought the T-shirt………Like the F-35 thread, if you want to get into specifics on it, read this thread and then ask questions or debate:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22806-helicopter-deal-f-35-all-over-again/

[carepov]

First, my deepest sympathies to all soldiers affected by PTSD, their comrades and families...

Then why did you ask for a link to the report?

I thought that perhaps someone would have posted the actual report elsewhere on the internet.

The report consequently called for: (a) reducing the numbers of headquarters and staffs “by grouping like functions or accepting risk in the entire elimination of certain organizations;” ( reallocating approximately 3500 regular force personnel into those areas identified for future growth or investing the funds elsewhere; © demobilizing the number of full-time reservists back to a “baseline of approximately 4,500”; (d) “reducing by up to 30 [per cent] over several years the $2.7 billion spent on contractors, consultants and private service providers and investing the funds in future capital programmes” as outlined in the Canada First Defence Strategy; and (e) “reinvesting approximately 3,500 civil servants into higher priority activities or investing the funds elsewhere.” Numbered among “future investment areas” were “new people and capabilities for the Arctic, an air expeditionary wing, the Canadian Rangers, investments in cyber defence, space, special operations forces, deployable all-source intelligence centres, human intelligence, counter IED, nuclear/biological/chemical defence, returning sailors to sea, returning reserve supervisors from full-time headquarters employment to part-time leadership roles on the armoury floors, and deployable support personnel.”

Exactly. Just because something is mentioned in the report it does not mean that it was in the scope of the report. From what I've read, Leslie's report did not critique the Canada First Defence Strategy. He did not look at F-35 costs and did not look at the costs of the new ships. He did not consider other procurement options that could potentially save money. These issues were out of scope. The report focussed on streamlining operations so that we can have the money to pay for the Canada First Defence Strategy.

Again both you and the National Post do not understand the concept of what’s being discussed……A "Battalion" is only an organizational definition of a group of soldiers………We have had 9 under strength "Battalions" since the Liberals reduced funding in the 90s and disbanded the CAR……

What is being discussed is disbanding one of these organizations, that has a top heavy headquarters, support & logistics staff, augmenties from the reserves and civilian DND employees, and putting the actual “teeth” from said disbanded "battalion" into the remaining ones to bring them to full strength, well reducing the “tail” on DND‘s books……..That is very much so what Leslie recommended, and it will likely go even further.

Consultant, overhead and operating costs are up. Where is the money for the Canada First Defence Strategy going to come from?

Regarding ships, F35 and helicopters - good idea, I will go through the threads and we can discuss further there.

[Guest Derek L]

Exactly. Just because something is mentioned in the report it does not mean that it was in the scope of the report. From what I've read, Leslie's report did not critique the Canada First Defence Strategy. He did not look at F-35 costs and did not look at the costs of the new ships. He did not consider other procurement options that could potentially save money. These issues were out of scope. The report focussed on streamlining operations so that we can have the money to pay for the Canada First Defence Strategy.

No, Leslie’s report clearly indicates additional ways to fund the Government’s strategy……And why would Leslie examine specific aircraft or ships? He’s an Artillery officer…….Like I said to you several post prior, Leslie will defer judgement on specific purchase to the those best suited to make them, well overall, supporting the Governments plans for transformation and renewal.

Consultant, overhead and operating costs are up. Where is the money for the Canada First Defence Strategy going to come from?

The existing and soon to be amended budget framework.

[Army Guy]

Leslies report is a good report, i think that there are serveral reasons it has not gained traction.

1) A lot of the higher chain of command are scared that as soon as extra funding is found, it will not be used for DND shortfalls in other projects but scooped up by government to make further reductions in servicing our debt. This has happened in the past, if there is a smell of surplus it is quickly scooped up.

with no gains to be had.

2) Some are like Retired Gen Hillier, they think that many years has gone into building these HQ's into the palaces they have become so that planning and decision making can happen in a short order and effect operations that are happening all over the globe. Destroying these will set back the military.

3) I personal think there is bigger fish to fry that to look for small cuts here and there. Currently there is talks in major force reductions which is going to effect everything within DND. and making small cuts is not going to defer any of these cuts. I get that something must give, the government is not going to properly fund DND in it's hour of need, i also get that Canada has to do something about the debt. and nobody wants higher taxes. shit our government can't spend what it has now.

I see these Major cuts as an end to everyones dream to have a military of over 70,000 pers. i think that like all the last major cuts DND will be hurting DND for experienced people,much need equipment, and will spend years if not decades to regain it. I know the Gens have said we will be able to afford a smaller military with newer equipment, but will this tiny force be able to accomplish all our needs be it NATO, NORAD, we can barely deploy 3600 troops for any length of time, reduce that by a third and what will we be able to do....

[Guest Derek L]

Leslies report is a good report, i think that there are serveral reasons it has not gained traction.

1) A lot of the higher chain of command are scared that as soon as extra funding is found, it will not be used for DND shortfalls in other projects but scooped up by government to make further reductions in servicing our debt. This has happened in the past, if there is a smell of surplus it is quickly scooped up.

with no gains to be had.

Regardless of merit, ultimately funding levels are the prerogative of the elected Government, and Defence spending is a loss leader when the majority of Canadians hold the same shared mentalities of folks like Carepov, namely the meme of “who would attack Canada” and “the Americans would protect us”…..

2) Some are like Retired Gen Hillier, they think that many years has gone into building these HQ's into the palaces they have become so that planning and decision making can happen in a short order and effect operations that are happening all over the globe. Destroying these will set back the military.

I agree in some areas, in other areas there is no defence i.e. Look at the size of Headquarters any given PRes infantry regiment has……..that is bloat.

3) I personal think there is bigger fish to fry that to look for small cuts here and there. Currently there is talks in major force reductions which is going to effect everything within DND. and making small cuts is not going to defer any of these cuts. I get that something must give, the government is not going to properly fund DND in it's hour of need, i also get that Canada has to do something about the debt. and nobody wants higher taxes. shit our government can't spend what it has now.

I see these Major cuts as an end to everyones dream to have a military of over 70,000 pers. i think that like all the last major cuts DND will be hurting DND for experienced people,much need equipment, and will spend years if not decades to regain it. I know the Gens have said we will be able to afford a smaller military with newer equipment, but will this tiny force be able to accomplish all our needs be it NATO, NORAD, we can barely deploy 3600 troops for any length of time, reduce that by a third and what will we be able to do....

Like we talked about in the past……..Are Canadians better served by a regular military of 50k fully trained and equipped personal or a military of 70k poorly trained and equipped personal? Or better put,quality over quantity….

Ultimately when over 60% of DND’s budget goes to personal costs, one must assume that this will be the biggest target.

[Army Guy]

I agree with you totally, most Canadians do not understand what shape their military is in, nor do they care they see it as a dept to starting with the cutting.

True enough, but is because we are moving along with the tech developements, we get more digitized and connected the amount of info that needs to be processed is much more greater than say our last days in combat. when a Bn Co could run his Bn out of a universal carrier,or small bunker with 3 or 4 staff.

I think we both know the answer to that, better trained and equiped is better. however that is provided those saving that come from the reduction are indeed put to use equiping and training those troops and are not just scooped up in the next budget cuts. And we both know that those 50 k left to do the job, are going to be busy puppies, our government always has taksing for us to fullfill regardless, or size or equipment. what i do see is burn out, a faster turn over rate which is not good for gaining experience. Along with Manpower, the equipment will also face the same thing, because they will buy less of it when we need more of it...

Army has already started to take drastic measures to save money, i'm sure it will soon hit the media, but life in the military is in for a big change....and from a dept that teaches change is good, it will be too much for most of it's membership, and when FRP force reduction rumours come true, i think the CDS will be surprised at how many jump ship. and like the last FRP he will be making phone calls to many offering their jobs back.

[Guest Derek L]

I agree with you totally, most Canadians do not understand what shape their military is in, nor do they care they see it as a dept to starting with the cutting.

True enough, but is because we are moving along with the tech developements, we get more digitized and connected the amount of info that needs to be processed is much more greater than say our last days in combat. when a Bn Co could run his Bn out of a universal carrier,or small bunker with 3 or 4 staff.

I agree, logistics, intelligence and the ability to collect, process and react to information is what wins wars……and that is true of all three elements. That’s not to say though that the Forces are not top heavy in terms of high ranking officers and that many positions held by Generals couldn’t be filled by Colonels and so on………If we trimmed down just 100 high ranking officers (colonel and above) that’s ~ 2 million dollars a year or better put, the retention of 230-250 lieutenants and captains.

I think we both know the answer to that, better trained and equiped is better. however that is provided those saving that come from the reduction are indeed put to use equiping and training those troops and are not just scooped up in the next budget cuts. And we both know that those 50 k left to do the job, are going to be busy puppies, our government always has taksing for us to fullfill regardless, or size or equipment. what i do see is burn out, a faster turn over rate which is not good for gaining experience. Along with Manpower, the equipment will also face the same thing, because they will buy less of it when we need more of it...

Well I don’t disagree about higher usage, you have to wonder how many of those junior officers and enlisted personal in their 40s & 50s, numerous high ranking officers, overweight and out of shape folks, full & part time reserves, contractors and civilian employees are actually vital to the operation of the Forces.

For instance, we should look at currently serving members that have been in for 20+ years and separate those that have not deployed within the last 5-10 years and ask why, thank them for their service and show them the door.

DND can't afford cheerleaders.

Army has already started to take drastic measures to save money, i'm sure it will soon hit the media, but life in the military is in for a big change....and from a dept that teaches change is good, it will be too much for most of it's membership, and when FRP force reduction rumours come true, i think the CDS will be surprised at how many jump ship. and like the last FRP he will be making phone calls to many offering their jobs back.

I left for greener pastures just prior to the last FRP (but stayed active through the Reserves and a couple of class C contracts until a few years ago) in the 90s and I think that if done right, say namely through natural attrition and early retirements, coupled with trimming some deadweight, it will actually be a positive move for the Forces…….

As I’m sure you know, right now the near and medium term road map is being charted upon the Mountain Top and from what I’ve heard, some positive (and needed) changes will be coming down the pipe…….Stay tuned as they say.

[carepov]

Regardless of merit, ultimately funding levels are the prerogative of the elected Government, and Defence spending is a loss leader when the majority of Canadians hold the same shared mentalities of folks like Carepov, namely the meme of “who would attack Canada” and “the Americans would protect us”…..

I agree with you totally, most Canadians do not understand what shape their military is in, nor do they care they see it as a dept to starting with the cutting.

First of all, when you say that "most Canadians don't care about/understand the military" I 100% agree with you. Just like most Canadians don't care about/understand, poverty, the environment, foreign aid, trade, immigration, democratic reform, government budgets, etc.. etc..

However, most "informed and enlightened" Canadians such as the two of you, (and hopefully myself), do care about our military. A good indication of this concern is the fact that so much attention was paid to the four recent deaths. Also, think about how every single military death during the war in Afghanistan was immediately reported and how governments were put on the spot for poorly equipping our soldiers. Compare this to "the good ole days", when on the one hand perhaps we “cheered on” our troops more, but on the other hand, we kept sending out hundreds and thousands of Canadian soldiers out to die.

Also, if you are concerned that Canadian civilians do not care about/understand the military, the tone and message in many of your posts are counter-productive. Just because someone disagrees with you or the military leadership on issues and geopolitical threats does not mean that they do not "support the troops" or are in some way "against the military".

[Guest Derek L]

First of all, when you say that "most Canadians don't care about/understand the military" I 100% agree with you. Just like most Canadians don't care about/understand, poverty, the environment, foreign aid, trade, immigration, democratic reform, government budgets, etc.. etc..

However, most "informed and enlightened" Canadians such as the two of you, (and hopefully myself), do care about our military. A good indication of this concern is the fact that so much attention was paid to the four recent deaths. Also, think about how every single military death during the war in Afghanistan was immediately reported and how governments were put on the spot for poorly equipping our soldiers. Compare this to "the good ole days", when on the one hand perhaps we “cheered on” our troops more, but on the other hand, we kept sending out hundreds and thousands of Canadian soldiers out to die.

By and large, the level of support for the Military by the Canadian public is a mile wide, but an inch deep……..

For instance, I’ve no doubt that with the news of deaths and injures from the recent war in Afghanistan the majority of Canadians felt saddened, but would the same number of Canadians supported the spending of billions of dollars on MRAPs and transport helicopters a decade earlier in the 90s?

Also, if you are concerned that Canadian civilians do not care about/understand the military, the tone and message in many of your posts are counter-productive. Just because someone disagrees with you or the military leadership on issues and geopolitical threats does not mean that they do not "support the troops" or are in some way "against the military".

Clearly you misunderstand my posts……..I have and can continue separating the thrust of my posts between current and future military requirements of the Canadian Forces and those of the geopolitical nature……..i.e., If we as a nation wish to continue our current methodology of national defence and Foreign policy, then yes, we need to invest in modern fighters, ships, tanks etc, but if we don’t invest in such things, our ability to maintain our current level of national defence and foreign policy will be diminished by default.

Of course one can justifiably argue that we don’t need or should change our national outlook on defence and foreign policy and in turn, can reduce or eliminate investment within the Canadian Forces, though I disagree (and based on our collective history, so to does the majority of the Canadian populace), that is a valid argument.

But to suggest that we can divest from DND and still continue as current into the future is intellectually dishonest……and that has been the mantra of the Liberal Party of Canada since PET.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Derek L

[carepov]

By and large, the level of support for the Military by the Canadian public is a mile wide, but an inch deep……..

Sure, but if we say that support is a foot long then there is over 750,000 cubic inches of it. Far less than hockey players and celebrities, but more than most proffessions.

For instance, I’ve no doubt that with the news of deaths and injures from the recent war in Afghanistan the majority of Canadians felt saddened, but would the same number of Canadians supported the spending of billions of dollars on MRAPs and transport helicopters a decade earlier in the 90s?.

If it was purchased within the budget, yes.

Clearly you misunderstand my posts……..I have and can continue separating the thrust of my posts between current and future military requirements of the Canadian Forces and those of the geopolitical nature……..i.e., If we as a nation wish to continue our current methodology of national defence and Foreign policy, then yes, we need to invest in modern fighters, ships, tanks etc, but if we don’t invest in such things, our ability to maintain our current level of national defence and foreign policy will be diminished by default.

Of course one can justifiably argue that we don’t need or should change our national outlook on defence and foreign policy and in turn, can reduce or eliminate investment within the Canadian Forces, though I disagree (and based on our collective history, so to does the majority of the Canadian populace), that is a valid argument.

But to suggest that we can divest from DND and still continue as current into the future is intellectually dishonest……and that has been the mantra of the Liberal Party of Canada since PET.

You would be right if there was no waste in the system. As long as there is waste you can cut costs and improve results. Also there is not just one type of "modern fighter, or modern ship" - that will be for another thread...

[Guest Derek L]

Sure, but if we say that support is a foot long then there is over 750,000 cubic inches of it. Far less than hockey players and celebrities, but more than most proffessions.

Do you expect a mature response?……You might not see the difference between members of the military and a pro hockey player or from the other end of the scale, a garbage men…..Would you take such a glib approach in person towards a veteran?

If it was purchased within the budget, yes.

As they say, actions speak louder then words…….I suppose your budgetary concerns play well with the families of the wounded and killed, fore clearly a great number of Canadians would not have been killed or wounded in Afghanistan if Chinooks and MRAPs had of fit into the Liberals budgetary constraints of the 90s and early 2000s…….

Like I said in my previous post, people of your shared mentality (and that of the previous Liberal governments) had no qualms sending Canadian troops to Afghanistan, and then upping the commitment of Canadian Forces into a greater combat role, all the while not providing said Forces adequate equipment…..

Make no mistake, once the Conservatives took power and purchased and deployed heavily armoured vehicles (Including the Leopard I and eventually Leopard II tanks) and stood-up TF Silver Dart, the instances of Canadians being killed and wounded by IEDs and land mines, both the most lethal foe Canadians faced, decreased.

You would be right if there was no waste in the system. As long as there is waste you can cut costs and improve results. Also there is not just one type of "modern fighter, or modern ship" - that will be for another thread...

And who is best equipped to make such determination? Clearly your misguided point of view is at odds with that of the RCAF and RCN….

[Guest Derek L]

A friend sent me the link for this report done by CBC's The Journal, for those not old enough to remember, it was like 60 Minutes......In this report, from 1983, they investigate the concerns of our NATO allies in our lacklustre commitment to defence, under the then Liberal Government (PM Turner) going all the way back to the start of PET’s reign of terror…….Nobody can accuse the CBC of being a “right-wing rag”…….Like they say about those that forget history….

Though our problems with defence back then spread across all elements, they focus on the “new” Hornet purchase…..rather apropos in today’s climate.

[carepov]

Do you expect a mature response?……You might not see the difference between members of the military and a pro hockey player or from the other end of the scale, a garbage men…..Would you take such a glib approach in person towards a veteran?….

I'm sorry that my nerdy (weak) attempt a humor failed. We were talking about he Canadian public's support for the Military - I'm calling it like it is and I agree with you. The public doesn't care nor do they understand - this we both agree on.

As for me, care is my middle name and I am trying to better understand the Military. I think (almost) everyone deserves respect and I would they to empathize with any veteran (or anyone else) I meet.

As they say, actions speak louder then words…….I suppose your budgetary concerns play well with the families of the wounded and killed, fore clearly a great number of Canadians would not have been killed or wounded in Afghanistan if Chinooks and MRAPs had of fit into the Liberals budgetary constraints of the 90s and early 2000s…….

Like I said in my previous post, people of your shared mentality (and that of the previous Liberal governments) had no qualms sending Canadian troops to Afghanistan, and then upping the commitment of Canadian Forces into a greater combat role, all the while not providing said Forces adequate equipment…..

Make no mistake, once the Conservatives took power and purchased and deployed heavily armoured vehicles (Including the Leopard I and eventually Leopard II tanks) and stood-up TF Silver Dart, the instances of Canadians being killed and wounded by IEDs and land mines, both the most lethal foe Canadians faced, decreased.

You wrong about "my mentality". I am doubting the need for F-35s and over-priced ships. IMO, wasting money on these procurement and on fatty wasteful beureaucracy (as per Leslie) takes money away from where it is really needed - like Chinooks and MRAPs, etc...

I am no Liberal partisan - I voter for Harper in 2006 and strongly disliked Chretien. I was embarrassed to have him represent us on the world stage. I am very upset that the Liberals (and military leaders) sent troops to war ill-equipped and am glad that the CPC took corrective action.

You are right - actions speak louder than words. That Is why I counter your (and Army Guy's) claim that Canadians do not "support our troops". When did we ever "support our troops"? What countries "support their troops"? Is it not true that being a member of our armed forces is safer now than it ever was historically? Aren't troops getting paid more than ever before? Haven't support services for troops and their families been continually expanding? What do these actions mean?

And who is best equipped to make such determination? Clearly your misguided point of view is at odds with that of the RCAF and RCN….

Well it's not Peter MacKay, that for sure.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that all the procurement blunders of the last 20-odd years were a result of Liberal politics/incompetence trumping sound military advice. Military leaders have never given bad advice to political leaders and the CPC always go along with this sound military advice. Is that right? Are you also saying that there is unanimous agreement within the RCAF and the RCN for the current procurement plan?

[Guest Derek L]

You wrong about "my mentality". I am doubting the need for F-35s and over-priced ships. IMO, wasting money on these procurement and on fatty wasteful beureaucracy (as per Leslie) takes money away from where it is really needed - like Chinooks and MRAPs, etc...

So you’re doubting the need to replace both our Hornets and current fleet of destroyers and frigates? You realize that Canadian Governments do deploy such assets as part of our foreign policy?

I am no Liberal partisan - I voter for Harper in 2006 and strongly disliked Chretien. I was embarrassed to have him represent us on the world stage. I am very upset that the Liberals (and military leaders) sent troops to war ill-equipped and am glad that the CPC took corrective action.

Military leaders don’t send members of the Canadian Forces overseas without the direction of the elected Government.

You are right - actions speak louder than words. That Is why I counter your (and Army Guy's) claim that Canadians do not "support our troops". When did we ever "support our troops"?

In my view, today and prior to that both the Diefenbaker and St Laurent Governments of the 1950s and early 60s.

What countries "support their troops"?

Lots.

Is it not true that being a member of our armed forces is safer now than it ever was historically?

Depends.

Aren't troops getting paid more than ever before?

So?

Haven't support services for troops and their families been continually expanding?

Yes.

What do these actions mean?

Not much, since post Afghanistan and the War on Terror, our Forces are again reaching a breaking point like they have so many times in the past.

Well it's not Peter MacKay, that for sure.

Why? Mackay was one of the most popular MND amongst the Forces, post-war, and had the ability and willingness to both learn and come to understand, then of course support, the requirements of the Armed Forces.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that all the procurement blunders of the last 20-odd years were a result of Liberal politics/incompetence trumping sound military advice.

Largely yes, but the Mulroney/Campbell Progressive Conservatives did make their fair share of mistakes and broken promises, granted the neglect wrought by Trudeau left a steep hill for them to climb, a hill that we’re stilling contending with today.

Military leaders have never given bad advice to political leaders and the CPC always go along with this sound military advice.

I don’t often believe in absolutes, but by and large military advice to civilian leadership is just that, they are after all looking out for their own best interests…As to the current Government, there are potential areas that could use improvement, but I won’t cast total judgement until after the review currently underway is complete…….

Is that right? Are you also saying that there is unanimous agreement within the RCAF and the RCN for the current procurement plan?

In terms of major procurement programs intended to replace current equipment……certainly.

[carepov]

So you’re doubting the need to replace both our Hornets and current fleet of destroyers and frigates?

No. I just doubt the selection of replacements, and the number of replacements.

In my view, today and prior to that both the Diefenbaker and St Laurent Governments of the 1950s and early 60s.

Assuming that you survived, would you rather be a Korean war vet or an Afghan vet?

So?

How do you measure "support of military". I propose a few measurements:

-Troop safety

-Pay

-Bennefits and family support

All are up.

[Guest Derek L]

No. I just doubt the selection of replacements, and the number of replacements.

So you’re in agreement that the Canadian Forces do need replacements for our Hornets, frigates and destroyers. Good, I obviously agree.

Now what fosters doubt with the selection and numbers, when clearly those within DND, with the inherent knowledge of such things, make a given selection to fulfill a requirement bestowed upon them by the elected Government?

Assuming that you survived, would you rather be a Korean war vet or an Afghan vet?

I don’t see the difference…….my father and brother are both.

How do you measure "support of military". I propose a few measurements:

-Troop safety

-Pay

-Bennefits and family support

All are up.

And your measurements are obtuse…….ultimately those measurements play little to no difference in ones military being able to achieve a successful outcome for it’s intended purpose: To fight and win wars.

You speak of safety, but hold doubts over the selection of modern equipment purchases that will have multitudes of improvements in terms of safety over their predecessors………

[carepov]

Now what fosters doubt with the selection and numbers, when clearly those within DND, with the inherent knowledge of such things, make a given selection to fulfill a requirement bestowed upon them by the elected Government?

The CPC is reconsidering (doubting) the selection of F35s. They are reconsidering (doubting) the number of ships we will purchase.

I don’t see the difference…….my father and brother are both.

And your measurements are obtuse…….ultimately those measurements play little to no difference in ones military being able to achieve a successful outcome for it’s intended purpose: To fight and win wars.

We were talking about your claim that today's troops are not supported.

In my books, when soldiers are safer (fewer are getting killed or hurt), getting paid more, and have more benefits for themselves and their families - these actions mean that troops are better supported. Are injured veterans treated better now of after the Korean war?

Again, what specific countries do you think support their troops more than Canada?

If these measurements do not matter, then what measurements do you suggest?

You speak of safety, but hold doubts over the selection of modern equipment purchases that will have multitudes of improvements in terms of safety over their predecessors………

There is very little chance that overpriced ships would increase the safety of any troops in future missions, when compared to more reasonably priced new ships.

Same with planes.

[Guest Derek L]

The CPC is reconsidering (doubting) the selection of F35s. They are reconsidering (doubting) the number of ships we will purchase.

No and to be determined.

We were talking about your claim that today's troops are not supported.

In my books, when soldiers are safer (fewer are getting killed or hurt), getting paid more, and have more benefits for themselves and their families - these actions mean that troops are better supported. Are injured veterans treated better now of after the Korean war?

How is that viable for measuring the overall abilities of the Canadian Forces?

Again, what specific countries do you think support their troops more than Canada?

By what measure?

If these measurements do not matter, then what measurements do you suggest?

The ability and ease of ones own military to achieve the required objectives of the elected Government.

There is very little chance that overpriced ships would increase the safety of any troops in future missions, when compared to more reasonably priced new ships.

Same with planes.

By all means, expand upon your knowledge of modern naval warfare, in particular, how a “overpriced” combat system like AEGIS provides no added benefit to deployed (naval) forces when compared to what we have today……..

Also, feel free to explain how the features associated with the F-35, and for the sake of argument, let’s preclude “stealth” and look towards the Distributed Aperture System, will not increase the likelihood of mission success (and the safe return of the pilot) in the decades ahead when compared to our current Hornet or any other 4th & 4.5 generation aircraft.

[carepov]

The ability and ease of ones own military to achieve the required objectives of the elected Government.

The Korean war did not work out too well did it? In fact, when in your opinion has the Canadian military best met the objectives of the governement?

By all means, expand upon your knowledge of modern naval warfare, in particular, how a “overpriced” combat system like AEGIS provides no added benefit to deployed (naval) forces when compared to what we have today……..

Also, feel free to explain how the features associated with the F-35, and for the sake of argument, let’s preclude “stealth” and look towards the Distributed Aperture System, will not increase the likelihood of mission success (and the safe return of the pilot) in the decades ahead when compared to our current Hornet or any other 4th & 4.5 generation aircraft.

There will be no added bennefit to capabilities that we will not use.

[Guest Derek L]

The Korean war did not work out too well did it?

Ask the South Koreans how they feel about it....

In fact, when in your opinion has the Canadian military best met the objectives of the governement?

Post-war till ~1968.....

There will be no added bennefit to capabilities that we will not use.

Uh-huh

My probable, final question, to you:

Are you really this ignorant of the (recent) history of the Canadian Forces or are you deliberately wasting my time?

Edited December 9, 2013 by Derek L

[carepov]

Ask the South Koreans how they feel about it....

You said a measurement of military is: "The ability and ease of ones own military to achieve the required objectives of the elected Government." Do you agree that the Korean war was not at all easy?

Post-war till ~1968.....

OK thanks, I'll chew on it.

My probable, final question, to you:

Are you really this ignorant of the (recent) history of the Canadian Forces or are you deliberately wasting my time?

I definately not deliberately wasting your time.

I am also far less knowledgeable than you about all aspects of the Canadian Forces. I do not consider myself ignorant. What often happens is that you completely misunderstand me. IMO advanced naval warfare capabilities and 5th generation fighters will not be as useful as other investemnts that Canada could make in the Forces or other departments. You seemed to interpret this as me saying, "Canada has never used their airforce or navy". No, and also for the millionth time I am not against replacing some old ships and planes so that we at least maintain the same capabilities that we had when your pictures were taken.

You seem to think that we should invest in all sorts of capabilities so that we are "prepared for anything". IMO, that is unrealistic, we should be prepared for the most likely scenarious not Russian and Chinese invasions.

[Guest Derek L]

You said a measurement of military is: "The ability and ease of ones own military to achieve the required objectives of the elected Government." Do you agree that the Korean war was not at all easy?

What do you mean by "easy"?

I am also far less knowledgeable than you about all aspects of the Canadian Forces. I do not consider myself ignorant. What often happens is that you completely misunderstand me. IMO advanced naval warfare capabilities and 5th generation fighters will not be as useful as other investemnts that Canada could make in the Forces or other departments. You seemed to interpret this as me saying, "Canada has never used their airforce or navy". No, and also for the millionth time I am not against replacing some old ships and planes so that we at least maintain the same capabilities that we had when your pictures were taken.

So you think modern capabilities are a waste, but you’d replace current capabilities with equipment of similar vintage and ability……..To offer a pictorial reference, what you purport would be akin to our Forces in the decades ahead (say 2030-2040 timeframe) operating equipment like our Forces do today, or better put, our Forces of today operating equipment like this:

today........

[Army Guy]

First of all, when you say that "most Canadians don't care about/understand the military" I 100% agree with you. Just like most Canadians don't care about/understand, poverty, the environment, foreign aid, trade, immigration, democratic reform, government budgets, etc.. etc..

However, most "informed and enlightened" Canadians such as the two of you, (and hopefully myself), do care about our military. A good indication of this concern is the fact that so much attention was paid to the four recent deaths. Also, think about how every single military death during the war in Afghanistan was immediately reported and how governments were put on the spot for poorly equipping our soldiers. Compare this to "the good ole days", when on the one hand perhaps we “cheered on” our troops more, but on the other hand, we kept sending out hundreds and thousands of Canadian soldiers out to die.

Also, if you are concerned that Canadian civilians do not care about/understand the military, the tone and message in many of your posts are counter-productive. Just because someone disagrees with you or the military leadership on issues and geopolitical threats does not mean that they do not "support the troops" or are in some way "against the military".

The problems our Military have been facing over the last 10 years or so, have been highlited on the media dozens of times, and nothing gets done, why is it that Soldiers must die to make a piont or spur some sort of action....why can't Canadians just open their eyes and see it for what it really is ....

Piont taken, i will stop using the Support the troops slogan. Perhaps you can tell me how you can show support for the military , and yet still be a strong advocate for dismantling some of its key capabilities and slash funding....

[carepov]

The problems our Military have been facing over the last 10 years or so, have been highlited on the media dozens of times, and nothing gets done, why is it that Soldiers must die to make a piont or spur some sort of action....why can't Canadians just open their eyes and see it for what it really is ....

Well as Derek pointed out many things have been done by the CPC government has taken some actions. It is wrong that soldiers had to die before actions were taken, and there are still a lot of changes needed. This is true in the military; it is also true throughout Canada and the rest of the world across many societal problems. How many people have to die before we improve road safety, rail safety, child poverty, health care, the environment?

Piont taken, i will stop using the Support the troops slogan. Perhaps you can tell me how you can show support for the military , and yet still be a strong advocate for dismantling some of its key capabilities and slash funding....

Thank you.

I advocate for dismantling/reducing a limited amount of capabilities (perhaps submarines would be a good example). I think that this will support the military because instead of trying to too many things half-assed we can do things better (more effectively and safer). The capabilities that get dismantled in the Canadian Forces should be selected based first on Canada's needs of course but also in consultation with NATO allies.

I favour a planned and controlled reduction in operating costs, as per Leslie's recommendations. This will help strengthen our military. The alternative is that one day the government in power will cut the defence budget and the military have no choice but to "slash funding" which I am against.