Canadian Military or Foreign Aid

[Guest Derek L]

Either way - it was a compliment to Canada.

Can anyone find me one credible source that criticises Canada for under-contributing (mooching) off our allies like NATO?

Our Cold War NATO contributions from 1968 on were heavily criticized, namely our Brigade Group in Germany being reduced from approx 5000 personal to 3000.……Our reduction of our 12 tactical fighter squadrons down to three……The reduction of escorts in our fleet, coupled with the reduction in capability by continuing to operate 1940s and 50s era technology through the 1970s and 80s, to say nothing of the early retirement without replacement of our last aircraft carrier, which degraded NATO’s ability to conduct ASW operations in the Western Atlantic, at such a time as the Soviet Navy saw a significant expansion of their submarine force, both in terms of actual numbers and capabilities.

Then there was our lacklustre commitment during the first Gulf War……our embarrassing contribution to both Peacekeeping and Peacemaking in the FRY…..And our initial commitments to the War on Terror.

[Guest Derek L]

Well I think this to be a suitable thread to post this report, a report that lends further credence to the stuff I’ve been babbling about (Pacific Pivot & coming Cold War with the Chinese Communists) in this thread and others:

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=121215

HALIFAX, Nova Scotia, Nov. 22, 2013 – The United States and Canada will increase their security cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region, American and Canadian defense leaders announced here today.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Canadian Defense Minister Rob Nicholson signed the Canada-U.S. Asia-Pacific Cooperation Framework today as both leaders take part in the Halifax International Security Forum. The forum continues through the weekend, but Hagel will return to Washington late today.

Hagel said that signing the agreement on America’s day of remembrance for President John F. Kennedy reminded him of a speech Kennedy made to the Canadian parliament in 1961.

More on the JFK speech and tie into this topic later.........What the new agreement will mean:

Hagel added that the dialogue will help establish clear parameters for coordination of operations among the United States’ Pacific Command, Canadian Joint Operations Command, and the Canadian Special Operations Forces Command.

“It will also help foster ties among our respective defense attachés in the region, as well as improve coordination for high-level visits and military-to-military activities where appropriate,” he said.

Hagel noted that an area of particular emphasis for both nations is humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.

As stated, further military coordination between our two nations within the Pacific Rim as an acknowledgement of both the growing importance of the region economically and as a further hegemony against Chinese military expansion and the threat it will pose in the decades going forward.

Now back to JFK's speech from nearly 50 years ago:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=8136

Thus ours is the unity of equal and independent nations, co-tenants of the same continent, heirs of the same legacy, and fully sovereign associates in the same historic endeavor: to preserve freedom for ourselves and all who wish it. To that endeavor we must bring great material and human resources, the result of separate cultures and independent economies. And above all, that endeavor requires a free and full exchange of new and different ideas on all issues and all undertakings.

For it is clear that no free nation can stand alone to meet the threat of those who make themselves our adversaries--that no free nation can retain any illusions about the nature of the threat--and that no free nation can remain indifferent to the steady erosion of freedom around the globe.

First, if you will, consider our mutual hopes for this Hemisphere. Stretching virtually from Pole to Pole, the nations of the Western Hemisphere are bound together by the laws of economics as well as geography, by a common dedication to freedom as well as a common history of fighting for it. To make this entire area more secure against aggression of all kinds--to defend it against the encroachment of international communism in this Hemisphere--and to see our sister states fulfill their hopes and needs for economic and social reform and development-are surely all challenges confronting your nation, and deserving of your talents and resources, as well as ours.

To be sure, it would mean an added responsibility; but yours is not a nation that shrinks from responsibility. The Hemisphere is a family into which we were born--and we cannot turn our backs on it in time of trouble. Nor can we stand aside from its great adventure of development. I believe that all of the free members of the Organization of American States would be heartened and strengthened by any increase in your Hemispheric role. Your skills, your resources, your judicious perception at the council table--even when it differs from our own view--are all needed throughout the inter-American Community. Your country and mine are partners in North American affairs--can we not now become partners in inter-American affairs?

I'm forced to wonder, if Kennedy wasn't killed and went on to serve a second term, would his calls for a committed, internationally minded Canada have gone unanswered as historic by the Trudeau government, or would the momentum of his beliefs carried forward a generational dogma subscribing to what JFK thought Canada’s role in the world should have been…..

[bush_cheney2004]

I'm forced to wonder, if Kennedy wasn't killed and went on to serve a second term, would his calls for a committed, internationally minded Canada have gone unanswered as historic by the Trudeau government, or would the momentum of his beliefs carried forward a generational dogma subscribing to what JFK thought Canada’s role in the world should have been…..

No, I think not given the observed dynamics during even the existential threat that was the Cuban Missile Crisis. Canada's DND followed JFK, not Diefenbaker, who already had a strained relationship with Kennedy. It is in Canada's DNA to reflexively mistrust American motives and dogma, and there is a political price to be paid domestically for any party that does so.

[Guest Derek L]

No, I think not given the observed dynamics during even the existential threat that was the Cuban Missile Crisis. Canada's DND followed JFK, not Diefenbaker, who already had a strained relationship with Kennedy. It is in Canada's DNA to reflexively mistrust American motives and dogma, and there is a political price to be paid domestically for any party that does so.

I know all to well the role the RCN played in the Cuban missile crisis (My father was part of the RCN’s 1st squadron’s 1000km sprint from the Eastern Atlantic to hunt Foxtrots off of Cape Cod), but the political atmosphere did indeed change once Lester B Pearson formed government and in turn, Canada became more politically receptive to Pax Americana…….Of course this again changed with the selection of PET later in the decade…..

It is my contention that if Kennedy had of carried on, so to would have the St Laurent Liberals led by Pearson as opposed to the historic outcome of the Party takeover by the Lauratian elites led by Fabian Socialists like Pierre Elliot Trudeau…….and the ensuing years of anti-Americanism.

[bush_cheney2004]

It is my contention that if Kennedy had of carried on, so to would have the St Laurent Liberals led by Pearson as opposed to the historic outcome of the Party takeover by the Lauratian elites led by Fabian Socialists like Pierre Elliot Trudeau…….and the ensuing years of anti-Americanism.

Maybe, but the Americans were frustrated over the entire history arc of post WW2 "commie fightin' "when it came to Canada's political leadership. "Ike and John" were probably as good as it was going to get, if only because Eisenhower had earned his respect. Not until Reagan and Mulroney would relations actually be considered good on a personal level.

[ReeferMadness]

Maybe, but the Americans were frustrated over the entire history arc of post WW2 "commie fightin' "when it came to Canada's political leadership. "Ike and John" were probably as good as it was going to get, if only because Eisenhower had earned his respect. Not until Reagan and Mulroney would relations actually be considered good on a personal level.

Aww. We weren't shoveling enough dollars into the maw of your military-industrial complex? That's a shame. Your commie-fighters like Joseph McCarthy were so inspiring - I feel really bad that we didn't waste a whole bunch more money.

I guess we can make up for it now but flushing money down the F35 toilet.

[bush_cheney2004]

Aww. We weren't shoveling enough dollars into the maw of your military-industrial complex?

Not even enough dollars for your own military-industrial complex, a main reason for the CF-105 fiasco. But the General Dynamics employees in Ontario knew they could count on the Americans not being so cheap.

[Guest Derek L]

Maybe, but the Americans were frustrated over the entire history arc of post WW2 "commie fightin' "when it came to Canada's political leadership. "Ike and John" were probably as good as it was going to get, if only because Eisenhower had earned his respect. Not until Reagan and Mulroney would relations actually be considered good on a personal level.

That’s not so……St Laurent, Diefenbaker and Pearson all had cordial relations with the Postwar Presidents and only begin to sour with the Presidency of LBJ (Vietnam) and this was further aggravated by the Trudeau Government……..The several notable Cold War discrepancies in the 50s and early 60s can be attributed to a generational riff caused by older Canadian Generations still paying homage to the final vestiges of the British Empire.

Unlike a divisive LBJ, Kennedy understood the “special relationship” with the Empire and the United States, and though adamantly opposed to Imperialism (Both British and French), recognised the natural decline of the Empire, well also having the inherent abilities of grace and niceties when dealing with all remaining things British…….

To think, a second term Kennedy quite possibly could have had British (and Canadian) support in Vietnam……and based on the successful British campaign of “Wog bashing” in Malaya, Vietnam might have ended up in the “win” column

[Peter F]

... establish clear parameters for coordination of operations among the United States’ Pacific Command, Canadian Joint Operations Command, and the Canadian Special Operations Forces Command.

So status-quo then .

[bush_cheney2004]

That’s not so……St Laurent, Diefenbaker and Pearson all had cordial relations with the Postwar Presidents and only begin to sour with the Presidency of LBJ (Vietnam) and this was further aggravated by the Trudeau Government……..

That's not my recollection, particularly as JFK undermined to the point of interference with Diefenbaker's domestic support. JFK famously said of the Canadian PM, "I never want to see that boring son of a bitch again". The Americans did not waver much from getting their hate on for commies, but the sales job had to be repeated with Canada for each new government with decreasing levels of success. As for the support of the falling empire in 'Nam, Australia and New Zealand officially represented the Commonwealth, with or without Her Majesty's blessing !

[Guest Derek L]

So status-quo then .

No.

[Guest Derek L]

That's not my recollection, particularly as JFK undermined to the point of interference with Diefenbaker's domestic support. JFK famously said of the Canadian PM, "I never want to see that boring son of a bitch again". The Americans did not waver much from getting their hate on for commies, but the sales job had to be repeated with Canada for each new government with decreasing levels of success. As for the support of the falling empire in 'Nam, Australia and New Zealand officially represented the Commonwealth, with or without Her Majesty's blessing !

I don’t doubt JFK and Diefenbaker had a personality clash, but by the same token, with the cancellation of the Arrow, many called Diefenbaker an American lapdog………..

[Army Guy]

It was U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates that said Canada was "punching above our weight:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-06-21-US-stuck-with-NATO-bill_n.htm

You think that Canada and the US should split air defence 50/50? Seriously?

I have tried and cannot come up with any credible criticisms of Canada under-contributing to NATO or ABCA.

I keep coming up with reports like this one: http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/Canada%20and%20NATO%20-%20A%20Military%20Assessment.pdf

that stress the importance of working with and supporting the US. That is what I've been saying all along.

Can you please stop with you "support the troops" bullshit.

Your approach is to expand military capabilities indefinitely without consideration of budget constrints, waste, or the development of useless capabilities. If I remember correctly you were in favour of a fleet of Canadian aircraft carriers! Guess what happens when you spread yourself too thin? Thant's right you end up being a jack of all trades and a master of none. More coffins, amputees and mental scars are coming back under your plan compared to mine!

A political feel good about yourself speach, don't get overwhelmed everyone gets the same speach, your forgetting the first 3 years of the Afghan conflict where were we and what caveats did we have.....

I think you should research how much we contribute to NORAD, and then tell me, you are aware that NORAD is responable for more than Airspace right ?

Shit wiki leaks had no problem finding sources....it made the media they are there just have to look. Besides you are pushing a forces reduction in Capabilities and your sources says nothing about reduction in capabilities, but rather you are pushing futher relience on US forces.

Is that what it is "bullshit" well i guess i should not have expected anything else. I mean reductions, reductions reductions, anyway you look at it , it does not come out with " support your troops"

Not having the proper equipment we need to do the job translates into having soldiers come home in coffins it's really that simple .....or did you forget how many of our young soldiers died in Afghan , some in open air jeeps, some in the open air jeeps replacements, most on the roads littered with IED's , because we could not fly our supplies around like most of the other contingents, we even had to borrow tanks from Germany because we did not want to buy any.....why because we did not have the proper equipment and when we finally got it , it was to little and to late, soldiers had already paid that price....Is that what you call supporting the troops, wait until enough have died then we will spend the funding to save a few.....do you really think i should stop the Support your troops bullshit....i lived and watched these guys die and NO i will not stop....

Your approach is to expand military capabilities indefinitely without consideration of budget constrints, waste, or the development of useless capabilities. If I remember correctly you were in favour of a fleet of Canadian aircraft carriers! Guess what happens when you spread yourself too thin? Thant's right you end up being a jack of all trades and a master of none. More coffins, amputees and mental scars are coming back under your plan compared to mine!

Nobody said expansion of Capabilities, but rather strengthing the ones we already have, your right i did not have any considerations to budget restraints, but lets not forget the main reason our military is in it's current shape is budget restraints, over the last 30 years or so, nobody seemed to care where the money came from then, and now or shortly it will come time to pay the piper.....and the longer we wait the larger the price tag....I have always said there is waste and something should be done to fix it.....

That is half your problem you can't remember shit. I never said we should invest in useless capabilities, nor have i been a advocate of Aircraft carriers, ....again with the research thing, try it once....

Just to correct you, we did not spread ourselfs to thin, the Canadian tax payer and serving governments did that...And we already are jsck of all trades, master of none of them because we do not enjoy the same amount of support as the US military has....You also forget that this has been the way our military has operated for well over 50 years, our troops would go where every you send them, with a sling shot and broken arrow if need be, why because we have your back, this nation is worth all of that and more .... my piont is that if you want to reduce and you agree on that solely because of funding then you should be there to meet the bodies of our troops when they come home.

[carepov]

I looked and I can't find information about what our contributions to NORAD and NATO are or what they should be. (certainly not 50 % of NORAD). If it is so easy, then please look it up and show me how Canada is not meeting its commitments. (Note: if we are not meeting commitments then I agree with you that we should)

I'm sorry that I assumed that you were in favour of expanding our capabilities; I got you mixed up with Derek.

I am sorry about your comrades dying. I do not agree with sending troops out to battle without the proper equipment and with over-restrictive caveats. On this point it is you that have misunderstood my position.

We are actually saying a lot of the same things: think and plan first, spend the money where it's needed for the right capabilities, and then act in accordance to those capabilities - putting the troop safety first.

My biggest concerns are with the stupidly overpriced F35s and the new ships. Wasting money on these items will take money away from protecting the troops.

Where we might disagree is that I am not concerned that sometimes we rent equipment from allies, or work with them in other ways, to get the job done safely. As I've said before, this is teamwork and we should do more of it.

We have spread ourselves too thin. The taxpayers, the governments AND the military leadership. I am afraid that we are not learning from our mistakes and are therefore doomed to repeat them.

[PIK]

Was'nt the aricraft carrier thingy a huge sacndal, that we spent a fortune on upgrades and then gave it to quebec for srcap or something like that.

[Guest Derek L]

Was'nt the aricraft carrier thingy a huge sacndal, that we spent a fortune on upgrades and then gave it to quebec for srcap or something like that.

The Bonaventure was decommissioned shortly after an extensive & expensive refit, but was scrapped in the early 70s in Taiwan……….One urban legend though, was that well in transit to Taiwan to be scrapped, the tug crew swapped her at sea with the Indians for their sister ship, the INS Vikrant……….The “Vikrant” served in the Indo-Pakistan war and remained in Indian service until the late 90s……and now resides as museum ship in Mumbai:

[Guest Derek L]

We are actually saying a lot of the same things: think and plan first, spend the money where it's needed for the right capabilities, and then act in accordance to those capabilities - putting the troop safety first.

My biggest concerns are with the stupidly overpriced F35s and the new ships. Wasting money on these items will take money away from protecting the troops.

Your viewpoint is nowhere near that of Army Guy, fore he’s never suggested not replacing the Hornets and the Fleet……..How do you advocate for the members of the Canadian Forces safety when you’re opposed to modern fighters and naval vessels? The F-35 and modern naval vessels are the right capabilities for Canada….

[carepov]

Your viewpoint is nowhere near that of Army Guy, fore he’s never suggested not replacing the Hornets and the Fleet……..How do you advocate for the members of the Canadian Forces safety when you’re opposed to modern fighters and naval vessels? The F-35 and modern naval vessels are the right capabilities for Canada….

I am for modern fighters and fleets - just not stupidly expensive ones.

[Guest Derek L]

I am for modern fighters and fleets - just not stupidly expensive ones.

Oxymoron much? If you want modern equipment, equipment that will be modern, safe and capable throughout it’s life time, you have to spend “stupidly expensive”…………Ask yourself why nations are purchasing the F-35, modern and complex naval vessels, armoured vehicles etc….Purchasing slightly cheaper equipment today, with the expectations that it will be capable into the 2030s, 40s etc is stupidly naïve.

[carepov]

Oxymoron much? If you want modern equipment, equipment that will be modern, safe and capable throughout it’s life time, you have to spend “stupidly expensive”…………Ask yourself why nations are purchasing the F-35, modern and complex naval vessels, armoured vehicles etc….Purchasing slightly cheaper equipment today, with the expectations that it will be capable into the 2030s, 40s etc is stupidly naïve.

Throughout my discussions on MLW, I have softened my position regarding military spending. I am starting to accept ridiculously expensive but I have to draw the line at supidly expensive.

If all your friends jumped off a bridge then would you too?

[Guest Derek L]

Throughout my discussions on MLW, I have softened my position regarding military spending. I am starting to accept ridiculously expensive but I have to draw the line at supidly expensive.

If all your friends jumped off a bridge then would you too?

If I had similar reasons as the others, of course.

[bush_cheney2004]

Throughout my discussions on MLW, I have softened my position regarding military spending. I am starting to accept ridiculously expensive but I have to draw the line at supidly expensive.

Except when it's some other nation doing the stupidly expensive, right ? 'Cause then it is only right to share with everybody else in a common goal, right ? Such a deal !

[-1=e^ipi]

If Canada were truly selfish, we would have either a very small military (for like search and rescue missions, counter terrorism) or no military. We face no threats and have this big ally south of us with the world's biggest military, so we don't really need one.

However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have one. The primary focus of our military should be to protect our allies (primarily I'm thinking South Korea and Japan here). In addition, the military serves humanitarian, peace keeping, search & rescue and counter-terrorism purposes. So we still should have a decent military; primarily to benefit other countries. But 1.2% of GDP does seem high to me, so maybe we should reduce it. I'm not sure I agree that any reduction should go to direct foreign aid (we could do other things like invest it in space exploration, pay of the debt, fund sciences, lower taxes, etc.). But evaluating the amount of military expenditures we should have does seem difficult and I am at a loss on how to do so. Maybe it would be more productive to rethink how we can make our military more efficient and more streamlined to it's purpose. Giving the military uses during peacetime (like have contracted arms manufacturers produce other goods for the public instead of arms during peacetime) would be a good way to do this.

[carepov]

Except when it's some other nation doing the stupidly expensive, right ? 'Cause then it is only right to share with everybody else in a common goal, right ? Such a deal !

Wrong. I am against all stupid spending.

[bush_cheney2004]

Wrong. I am against all stupid spending.

OK...then checking your logic, it would follow that you do not support "sharing" in such "stupid spending". That would mean more low tech warfighting, less precision for munitions, no GPS system, no lift fan, tilt rotor, or stealth aircraft, no digital data links, no satellite recon imaging or signals intel, no AWACS, no laser rangefinders for tanks, no nuclear subs to launch cruise missiles that also wouldn't exist, etc. , etc. Gosh, think of all the money that would be saved.

No...none of that stupid expensive stuff...just good 'ol blood and guts trench warfare, with breaks for tea, of course. Much more civilized.