Canadian Military or Foreign Aid

[Chronos]

Army Guy defensive agreements are one thing. We can defend them with our military (but shouldn't help them if they are the aggressors). That doesn't mean we need an over bloated military to do it.

As for the above bit that bush/cheney (lol ironic given his username) quoted. No one is suggesting sending you in anywhere. I'm sick of Canadians being put into the line of fire where they shouldn't be.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Chronos

[bush_cheney2004]

....As for the above bit that bush/cheney (lol ironic given his username) quoted. No one is suggesting sending you in anywhere. I'm sick of Canadians being put into the line of fire where they shouldn't be.

And yet, Canadian Forces still end up at risk with piss poor kit. Even domestic SAR is done on the cheap.

[Chronos]

Then give them a decent kit and scrap the 135 million a pop jets.

[Army Guy]

Army Guy defensive agreements are one thing. We can defend them with our military (but shouldn't help them if they are the aggressors). That doesn't mean we need an over bloated military to do it.

you think our current military is bloated, 65 k in total, 15 k ground pers thats bloated, shit our military has a hard time sending 2800 of us on operations at one time.....

As for the above bit that bush/cheney (lol ironic given his username) quoted. No one is suggesting sending you in anywhere. I'm sick of Canadians being put into the line of fire where they shouldn't be.

you don't get it either, if and when anything comes up we are sent in as is, it takes years to spring up a purcurement program to get the tools we need....future wars conflicts are come as you are....

[Guest Derek L]

I haven’t suggested we should fight the battle of the Atlantic again, even though I spent a good portion of my life preparing to do exactly that………..Be that as it may, the rapid expansion of the Chinese blue-water fleet suggests we should look to be preparing to fight the Battle of the Pacific as a possible future scenario.

Hence the bipartisan Pacific pivot of the United States, coupled with the rapid expansion of our regional allies in response to the Chinese expansion and inclusions of a maritime expeditionary doctrine as a feather in the cap of Chinese foreign policy.

Just saying:

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-05-08/news/39116897_1_chinese-and-senkaku-diaoyu-ryukyuan

China should 'reconsider' who owns Okinawa: state media

BEIJING: China's top newspaper on Wednesday published a call for a "reconsideration" of Japan's sovereignty over the island of Okinawa -- home to major US bases -- with the Asian powers already embroiled in a territorial row.

The lengthy article in the People's Daily, China's most-circulated newspaper and the mouthpiece of the ruling Communist party, argued that China may have rights to the Ryukyu island chain, which includes Okinawa.

Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history. - Winston Churchill, before the HoC, May 2nd 1935

[carepov]

...

In your opinion, how much money should Canada spend on defence annually?

[Guest Derek L]

In your opinion, how much money should Canada spend on defence annually?

+/- several billion to what we spend now, but accounting for inflation and spikes in stand alone procurements, if such a reorganization and review of requirements was taken as I’ve outlined.

[Guest Derek L]

It most certainly is, and you could add three oceans on the other sides, yet at what point do we fully allow the United States to defend our sovereignty and foreign interests? Also, is it not reasonable for the United States to expect a worthwhile Canadian contribution to the “shared” defence umbrella? Their expectations of a Canadian contribution aren’t that high.

As such, and combined with both Canadian fiscal and political realities, we should contribute a professional military that can both meet Canadian interests at home and abroad well also making a viable (and invaluable) contribution to (likely) US led, coalition warfare. In a great many areas we are already there or have signalled that we will be there in the near future, but in some areas, we have been and currently are a burden and our contribution is solely geopolitical.

Does this mean we need to drastically increase our defence budget? Not at all, but we have to realize greater efficiencies and reprioritize our focus in some areas. It would also be helpful if the elected Government, of any strip, realized that the Department of National Defence (and it’s stated needs) shouldn’t be looked at as a regional job creation program nor one of the largest agencies in Government to hold vast amounts of Real Estate and solely political infrastructure………This becomes a political mater, but there it is.

As to political realities, we must revisit the past and examine what areas we have done well and not so well, well also combining this with what we can afford and what the Canadian public and our political actors will tolerate and support……Though not morally right, it is reality. For example, are Canadians more likely to support a sustained ground mission similar to Afghanistan in the near future? What about a primarily RCAF-centric generated mission like our contribution to the enforcement of the no-fly zone over Libya? Or the RCN’s (quite) contribution to combating piracy off the Horn of Africa?

You answer these above questions, take into account our natural geography and friendly neighbour to the South and take a Longview look at what future conflicts we could become embroiled, and that is the direction we should focus our limited fiscal and political capital.

What's that thing they say about broken clocks:

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

As I said above, there is no reason that Canada can’t have an effective, modern military within the current fiscal framework………..Do we need 9 (administrative) infantry Battalions of 3 undermanned companies of infantry? Or would not reducing the number of battalions to 8 and fully manning the remaining infantry companies, well doing away with the administrative and combat support companies make sense……I can’t find the thread now, but I’ve even suggested reducing the Army down to 6 infantry battalions with 4 companies in each, well moving the 3 parachute companies to CSOR……..eliminating a good chunk of the administrative overhead that DND is plagued with………Don’t get me started on Base Closures and the Puzzle Factory in Ottawa….

[AlienB]

My Defence Policy is still to open up volunteer militias, give a tax break to people who buy their own militia equipment. Much like the US the more supply there is the lower the costs get and the more there is available when needed.

None the less I think the military should be tasked with both northern development and infrastructure and resource, maritime services including shipping. So that it can raise its own resources and be able to secure vital resources in times of need. Canada has a lot of development potential that is untapped.

In addition I think the military should be rolled into the public service to shift retiring workers positions into military positions perhaps with reduced hours or shared workload, and shifting some operations to military facilitites for security purposes like IT, communications, etc..

Canada is spending, none the less in replacing all of Canada's mlitary equipment after giving it away and or loosing it...... which is curious... there is no doubt that the costs will be high.

Its not about costs its about getting what you need for the lowest cost possible.

Need is not want. I think the military needs to open up buying allowances to people. Fact is though if all those companies selling the kit are posting multi million or billion dollar profits the costs arn't really the costs.

I have an indepth plan to shift spending away from general revenue expand available personnel and shift procurement to Canadian Crown corporation production as opposed to buying off american owned companies.. but of course this will never happen for obvious reasons.

This includes training more CF personnel to build and maintain their own equipment. Tool and die, or machining is not complex and by god most men should know how to do it. Likewise electronics isn't complex etc.. I am of the impression people are just not being developed and they could be and costs would go down while improving capacity.

I was really phazed when I saw an article saying CF hiring more fat uneducated people due to lack or new educated and health recruits.. for real?

this is surprising..

I was of the impression everything was so tight with staffing reductions the quality would have shot up.

None the less training is key people who are fat needn't stay fat, also people who are uneducated needn't stay uneducated.

Of course "Balancing the ___ DEFICIT ____ " can be hard with big ticket items that arn't paying down the debt while borrowing to pay it down and falling short.

Edited August 18, 2013 by AlienB

[Wilber]

Yes, the U.S. Navy were a little more wise about putting their Battleships into danger after that. Unlike the British who lost the Repulse and the Prince of Wales soon after.

Hindsight is always wonderfull. The reality is that until the sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse (which was a battle cruiser, not a battleship) no battleship at sea had ever been sunk by aircraft. The fact that one could was far more than a given at that time.

[Wilber]

Speaking of "special considerations", how many other countries are as peaceful as Canada and are good friends and neighbours to a country that spends 39% of the world's total military expenditures?

Anyways, it looks like there is a large amount of waste and we can have a stronger military by spending less money.

Australia doesn't have the luxury of freeloading off such a neighbour and has to pay its own way. It's geographical location requires it to be a leader, not a hanger on.

[dre]

Fine. Tell me... what part of military spending are you willing to sacrifice?

I would be fine with sacrificing all the non-defense military spending. Unprovoked attacks on places like Serbia, Afghanistan. And I would withdraw from NATO, and the security portion of the United nations.

[dre]

Australia doesn't have the luxury of freeloading off such a neighbour and has to pay its own way. It's geographical location requires it to be a leader, not a hanger on.

We are hardly freeloading off the US in fact the opposite is true. We have gone to war on their behalf, and on behalf if other NATO countries a bunch of different times, and never asked for a single bit of help in return. And lots of the time we get the ugliest and most dangerous jobs, because our chicken shit allies dont want to put troops in real combat situations.

In terms of global security Canada is a huge net contributor.

[Guest Derek L]

We are hardly freeloading off the US in fact the opposite is true. We have gone to war on their behalf, and on behalf if other NATO countries a bunch of different times, and never asked for a single bit of help in return. And lots of the time we get the ugliest and most dangerous jobs, because our chicken shit allies dont want to put troops in real combat situations.

In terms of global security Canada is a huge net contributor.

Absolute bullshit……….From everything from rifle ammunition to guided missiles and fighters, Canadians have benefited from defence research and manufacturing capacities initiated by others, namely the Americans.

As for the direct help we receive, everything from NORAD, intelligence, satellites, logistical support etc etc…All things that are vital to our National Defence…….Simply put, Canada gets more from our shared alliances (starting around Trudeau) then our partners get from us……..

It’s rich that some Canadians think others “owe” us, fore through the late 60s to the end of the Cold War, we continually reduced our treaty commitments, well allowing the forces we did deploy, to become obsolete….

Even with our participation in conflicts through the last two decades, our commitments were both small (bordering on token) in many instances and required Allied resources to function on a asymmetric battlefield.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Derek L

[carepov]

Australia doesn't have the luxury of freeloading off such a neighbour and has to pay its own way. It's geographical location requires it to be a leader, not a hanger on.

Yes Canada has the luxury of sitting under the umbrella of security provided by fortress America. Why shouldn't we take advantage of our good fortune?

Why should we try to duplicate all the capabilities of US defence when we cannot come close to making a significant contribution in most capabilities? A small general military is fine but, knowing that Canada will never go to war on it's own, Canada should pick a handful of specialized capabilities and focus on those: eg: air transport/logistics, training of foreign police and militaries, diplomacy, etc...

An analogy is space exploration where we focussed on the Canadarm.

[Guest Derek L]

Yes Canada has the luxury of sitting under the umbrella of security provided by fortress America. Why shouldn't we take advantage of our good fortune?

Why should we try to duplicate all the capabilities of US defence when we cannot come close to making a significant contribution in most capabilities? A small general military is fine but, knowing that Canada will never go to war on it's own, Canada should pick a handful of specialized capabilities and focus on those: eg: air transport/logistics, training of foreign police and militaries, diplomacy, etc...

An analogy is space exploration where we focussed on the Canadarm.

In all eventuality, the United States might one day actually mind our “free loading”, in all likelihood a day in which Canadian and US interests don’t intersect……In essence, you purport the dissolving of our own ability to defend our national sovereignty in favour of letting the Americans do it for us.

In the example of the Australians, they have learned the hard way on the reliance of another nation defending their interests for them…

[carepov]

In all eventuality, the United States might one day actually mind our “free loading”, in all likelihood a day in which Canadian and US interests don’t intersect……In essence, you purport the dissolving of our own ability to defend our national sovereignty in favour of letting the Americans do it for us.

In the example of the Australians, they have learned the hard way on the reliance of another nation defending their interests for them…

1. Our ability to defend our national sovereignty depends on our alliance with the USA. This would not change whether we cut out military budget in half or if we tripled the budget. (by the way, defend from whom?)

2. I cannot see any scenario where a loss of Canadian sovereignty would be tolerated by the Americans

3. Canada is not Australia

4. Canada would be less of a "freeloader" if our specialized capabilities were useful to the USA and other allies. For example: diplomacy to avert war, logistics, running military prisons, training...

Edited August 18, 2013 by carepov

[Guest Derek L]

1. Our ability to defend our national sovereignty depends on our alliance with the USA. This would not change whether we cut out military budget in half or if we tripled the budget. (by the way, defend from whom?)

Well you clearly don’t understand how alliances work……..Case in point NORAD, the Americans do have expectations of a meaningful Canadian contribution……..

2. I cannot see any scenario where a loss of Canadian sovereignty would be tolerated by the Americans

Again, a lack of understanding our territorial claims in the Arctic and the position of the United States….or our policy divergence in Rwanda is apparent…….

To paraphrase Henry Ford, the Canadians can have all the sovereignty they want, as long as it aligns with the American Manifest Destiny….

3. Canada is not Australia

That’s apparent, they relied once on others and were burnt several times for their troubles….hence the doctrine of Fortress Australia….

4. Canada would be less of a "freeloader" if our specialized capabilities were useful to the USA and other allies. For example: diplomacy to avert war, logistics, running military prisons, training...

You don’t understand geopolitical realties when one country joins a military alliance with other nations…..You see, those other nations expect a meaningful contribution….And as I said to you a few months back, pigeon holing ones military to suite the perceived needs of others is not a prudent policy and would further erode a Nations ability to defend it’s own sovereignty……

Simply put, you can withdrawal from mutually beneficial treaties and go it alone, or you can remain and make a meaningful contribution…..If you do what you suggest, which is akin to going to the bathroom when the bill arrives when out with friends, eventually you start to lose friends….

Case in point, our initial contribution to the War in Afghanistan saw a deployment of Canadian Forces reliant on Allied support in most avenues. When the lethality of roadside devices became a known factor and contributor to the most lethal means used against NATO forces, most of our allies took to vertical envelopment as a means of safely moving their forces around the theatre….

Previous Canadian governments had long since decided that Canadians didn’t require large transport helicopters, as such, Canadians continued to “drive to work” and were killed and injured in disproportionate numbers……When our calls to numerous European NATO allies, that had surplus capabilities in terms of battlefield helicopters (that were not committed to Afghanistan), were sent, we got a collective shrug as a response and were forced to rely on the availability of namely the Americans and the Dutch (who we sold our previous Chinooks to) until such a time as we were then able to purchase a handful of used Chinooks off of the Americans……….

You name the element within the Canadian Forces, and I can demonstrate a similar scenario or situation.

[Wilber]

Yes Canada has the luxury of sitting under the umbrella of security provided by fortress America. Why shouldn't we take advantage of our good fortune?

Why should we try to duplicate all the capabilities of US defence when we cannot come close to making a significant contribution in most capabilities? A small general military is fine but, knowing that Canada will never go to war on it's own, Canada should pick a handful of specialized capabilities and focus on those: eg: air transport/logistics, training of foreign police and militaries, diplomacy, etc...

An analogy is space exploration where we focussed on the Canadarm.

We cannot duplicate all the capabilities of the US but we need to look after the capabilities we feel are most necessary for our needs. The US will look after us only as long as their interests are served by doing so. You may not have noticed but our interests are not always the same.

While a particular contribution may or may not be significant in a military sense, it can be very significant in a moral sense. Why on earth would you expect someone to put themselves and their equipment in harms way for you, if you were not willing and able to do the same for them?

Alliances aren't charity, they require the same commitment from both parties even if their capabilities differ.

[dre]

Yes Canada has the luxury of sitting under the umbrella of security provided by fortress America. Why shouldn't we take advantage of our good fortune?

Canada has the good fortune of only having one international border, with a close trading partner. I dont see any evidence at all that we would have been invaded and conquered if not for the US. In fact our proximity to the US and our relationship with them has actually caused us a lot of security problems... It got us painted up by the Russians during the nuclear arms race, and it got us dragged into a 10 year quagmire in afghanistan.

Like I said. Canada has done more for the US and our other nato allies than any of them have ever done for us.

[dre]

We cannot duplicate all the capabilities of the US but we need to look after the capabilities we feel are most necessary for our needs. The US will look after us only as long as their interests are served by doing so. You may not have noticed but our interests are not always the same.

The US does not "look after us". We have a mutually beneficial relationship when them its true, and they have been excellent neighbors. We have the largest economic partnership in human history. But they get just as much out of it as we do, and they dont do anything with regards to us that they dont feel is in their own interests.

[carepov]

Well you clearly don’t understand ....

You clearly do not understand my position because I have stated numerous times that Canada should be making more meaningful contributions to its allies.

Edited August 19, 2013 by carepov

[Guest Derek L]

You clearly do not understand my position because I have stated numerous times that Canada should be making more meaningful contributions to its allies.

Yes, by reducing the scope and capability of our Armed Forces……

[carepov]

Yes, by reducing the scope and capability of our Armed Forces……

No, I propose doing the same (or more) with less. Some (less efficient) capabilities would be reduced, some capabilities would be expanded. Waste would be reduced.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/11/09/f-military-policy.html

[Guest Derek L]

No, I propose doing the same (or more) with less. Some (less efficient) capabilities would be reduced, some capabilities would be expanded. Waste would be reduced.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/11/09/f-military-policy.html

Yet above you said:

Canada should pick a handful of specialized capabilities and focus on those: eg: air transport/logistics, training of foreign police and militaries, diplomacy, etc...

An analogy is space exploration where we focussed on the Canadarm.

Which runs counter to General Leslie’s recommendations and the view of the current and past Canadian Governments.