Canadian Military or Foreign Aid

[Wilber]

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

As long as it doesn't actually involve the capability to do some fighting it would seem. The purpose of armed forces in the first place.

[Wilber]

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.

From the standpoint of continental defense they most certainly do. They benefit from having a peaceful, non aggressive neighbour on their northern border. Bully for us. The rest is just business.

[Guest Derek L]

As long as it doesn't actually involve the capability to do some fighting it would seem. The purpose of armed forces in the first place.

For the life of me, I’ve never understood that stance….it’s akin to having your cake and eating it to…….Why not just push for neutrality?

[carepov]

As long as it doesn't actually involve the capability to do some fighting it would seem. The purpose of armed forces in the first place.

Maybe it would seem to you - but that is not at all what I wrote.

[carepov]

For the life of me, I’ve never understood that stance….it’s akin to having your cake and eating it to…….Why not just push for neutrality?

You can have your cake and eat it too. It is a matter of eliminating waste. Private companies do it all the time, governments and bureaucracies are a little slower but it is possible.

[Guest Derek L]

Maybe it would seem to you - but that is not at all what I wrote.

Your words again:

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]

You can have your cake and eat it too. It is a matter of eliminating waste. Private companies do it all the time, governments and bureaucracies are a little slower but it is possible.

Well no, here you wrote:

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.

As such, a suggestion to abandon core elements within the Canadian Forces to save money and the reliance on other nations to provide those capabilities to Canadians.

[carepov]

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

No, I support the main recommendations in the Leslie report:

"The report makes 43 recommendations, including these key ones.

• Reallocating about 3,500 regular forces personnel into areas identified for future growth or investing the funds elsewhere.
• Reducing by up to 30 per cent the $2.7 billion spent on contractors, consultants and private-sector providers.
• Moving about 3,500 civil servants into higher priority activities or investing the funds elsewhere.
• Cutting the number of full-time reservists to 4,500 and converting them into part-time positions."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/08/19/pol-dnd-report-cuts.html

I also strongly support the NATO recommendations that: "In 2010, NATO proposed that its members eliminate some overlapping capabilities, with just one or a few members specializing in some tasks."

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

I especially share Lagasse and Taylor's criticisms that we (the Harper and previous governments) promise and start to implement massive military spending initiatives then the money runs out (a big factor being huge cost overruns) then these programs get scaled back almost at random and we end up with scattered "hodgepodge", "ad-hoc" military capabilities where we can do many things with mediocrity.

Let's face the facts - we can't do everything alone. Let's admit that and make deals and agreement with our allies. To use your earlier example with large transport helicopters, ink a deal now, or before enterering a Afghan-like mission, with Holland or the USA, or better yet push within NATO to make more efficient use of all the resources with NATO.

The flip side that Canada can specialize and do some things better than other NATO allies. Perhaps it's one the items I mentioned earlier, or cold-weather fighting, or something else. But it certainly isn't deployment of an aircraft carrier or nuclear submarines, rockets and nuclear missiles, and certainly other capabilities.

Edited August 19, 2013 by carepov

[carepov]

Well no, here you wrote:

As such, a suggestion to abandon core elements within the Canadian Forces to save money and the reliance on other nations to provide those capabilities to Canadians.

I also wrote that a small general military is fine. I never wrote about abandoning any core elements.

My position is consistent with NATO recommendations. I am not pushing for Canada to be dependant on NATO so that we can freeload, I am advocating a more inter-dependant NATO to make it cheaper AND stronger.

[Guest Derek L]

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

I support the main recommendations in the Leslie report:

"The report makes 43 recommendations, including these key ones.

• Reallocating about 3,500 regular forces personnel into areas identified for future growth or investing the funds elsewhere.
• Reducing by up to 30 per cent the $2.7 billion spent on contractors, consultants and private-sector providers.
• Moving about 3,500 civil servants into higher priority activities or investing the funds elsewhere.
• Cutting the number of full-time reservists to 4,500 and converting them into part-time positions."

I know what the report says, nowhere does it suggest:

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

I also strongly support the NATO recommendations that: "In 2010, NATO proposed that its members eliminate some overlapping capabilities, with just one or a few members specializing in some tasks."

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ary-policy.html

Yet above you state:

I support the main recommendations in the Leslie report

I especially share Lagasse and Taylor's criticisms that we (the Harper and previous governments) promise and start to implement massive military spending initiatives then the money runs out (a big factor being huge cost overruns) then these programs get scaled back almost at random and we end up with scattered "hodgepodge", "ad-hoc" military capabilities where we can do many things with mediocrity.

So you support Leslie's recommendations and the counterpoints made by Lagasse

Figure out what you do actually support first, then let me know….

[Guest Derek L]

I also wrote that a small general military is fine. I never wrote about abandoning any core elements.

My position is consistent with NATO recommendations. I am not pushing for Canada to be dependant on NATO so that we can freeload, I am advocating a more inter-dependant NATO to make it cheaper AND stronger.

Where?

Like I just said above......Figure out what you do actually support first, then let me know….

[carepov]

Where?

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.

[carepov]

So you support Leslie's recommendations and the counterpoints made by Lagasse

Figure out what you do actually support first, then let me know….

Yes, I support the parts of the Leslie report that advocates cutting bureaucracy but disagree with the strategy of trying to do everything. Sorry if this was not clear.

[Guest Derek L]

Yes, I support the parts of the Leslie report that advocates cutting bureaucracy but disagree with the strategy of trying to do everything. Sorry if this was not clear.

But in your very post above you highlight:

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...

Pick something, I’m losing interest very quick…….

[carepov]

Pick something, I’m losing interest very quick…….

I am against the idea of Canada having nuclear weapons.

Do you support a Canadian nuclear weapons program or do you prefer that we just freeload of American nuclear weapons?

[Guest Derek L]

I am against the idea of Canada having nuclear weapons.

Do you support a Canadian nuclear weapons program or do you prefer that we just freeload of American nuclear weapons?

We don’t freeload off the American’s nuclear weapons, fore thier policy surrounding the usage of said weapons is not of a bilateral nature, and if NATO ever pushed it to be so, I‘m certain the Americans, United Kingdom and the French would react much like the French did decades ago under Charlie Big Nose…

To add, we currently do not have a foreign policy that would require a nuclear deterrent…….If our foreign outlook changed and circumstances dictated a need, then yes, I’d support a Canadian nuclear deterrent, along the lines of what the Australians once looked at decades ago or what the British have today.

[carepov]

We don’t freeload off the American’s nuclear weapons, fore thier policy surrounding the usage of said weapons is not of a bilateral nature, and if NATO ever pushed it to be so, I‘m certain the Americans, United Kingdom and the French would react much like the French did decades ago under Charlie Big Nose…

To add, we currently do not have a foreign policy that would require a nuclear deterrent…….If our foreign outlook changed and circumstances dictated a need, then yes, I’d support a Canadian nuclear deterrent, along the lines of what the Australians once looked at decades ago or what the British have today.

So you are in favour of limiting Canada's military capabilities, wow, so am I!

Should Canada have aircraft carriers, attack helicopters, a submarine fleet, a modern tank division, portable anti-tank weapons, missile interceptors, bombers, paratroopers, mine sweepers, etc...?

[Guest Derek L]

So you are in favour of limiting Canada's military capabilities, wow, so am I!

Not at all, as I said:

If our foreign outlook changed and circumstances dictated a need, then yes, I’d support a Canadian nuclear deterrent

Should Canada have aircraft carriers, attack helicopters, a submarine fleet, a modern tank division, portable anti-tank weapons, missile interceptors, bombers, paratroopers, mine sweepers, etc...?

Of course, and in a great many cases, those are capabilities that we currently have to an extent or once had but lost because of past Governments with misguided views like yours.

[carepov]

Not at all, as I said:

Yes I heard what you said:

If our foreign outlook changed and circumstances dictated a need, then yes, I’d support a Canadian nuclear deterrent..

and it is exactly what my position is too. If our foreign outlook changed and circumstances dictated a need, then, yes I'd support "x" capabilities:

let x = nuclear deterrent

let x = 65 F35s

let x = overpriced armoured icebreakers

let x = amphibious assault ships

let x = so many other things

Today we do not need "x" therefore let's not waste money on "x"

[Guest Derek L]

Yes I heard what you said:

and it is exactly what my position is too. If our foreign outlook changed and circumstances dictated a need, then, yes I'd support "x" capabilities:

Well no, one of your positions was that we refocus our military to a few key tasks.

let x = nuclear deterrent

let x = 65 F35s

let x = overpriced armoured icebreakers

let x = amphibious assault ships

let x = so many other things

Today we do not need "x" therefore let's not waste money on "x"

Even though your other position was that we maintain a:

A small general military

So what is it? A “general military” (which I assume to mean what we already have) or a pigeon holed military aimed at supporting other people’s militaries?

Pick one.

[carepov]

Well no, one of your positions was that we refocus our military to a few key tasks.

Even though your other position was that we maintain a:

So what is it? A “general military” (which I assume to mean what we already have) or a pigeon holed military aimed at supporting other people’s militaries?

Pick one.

A small general military, similar to what we have, and a hanflul of specialized capabilities based on the needs and capabilities of our NATO allies. Specifically, no submarines, not 65 F35's, no new overpriced ships, probably limitted/no investment in modern tanks or attack helicopters....

Do you think that Canada should own an aircraft carrier?

[Guest Derek L]

A small general military, similar to what we have, and a hanflul of specialized capabilities based on the needs and capabilities of our NATO allies. Specifically, no submarines, not 65 F35's, no new overpriced ships, probably limitted/no investment in modern tanks or attack helicopters....

My god man, are you screwing with me?

A military "similar to what we have", but devoid of a modern combat capability

Do you think that Canada should own an aircraft carrier?

Certainly (realistically though, 2-3 would be a viable minimum) based on the importance that the Pacific Rim will play going into the decades ahead within the 21st century………As was the requirement for our past aircraft carriers in the Atlantic during the post-war, Cold-war environment……

Now of course aircraft carrier is a subjective term....

[Wilber]

If you have carriers, you have to protect them, which means modern surface ships and submarines.

[Guest Derek L]

If you have carriers, you have to protect them, which means modern surface ships and submarines.

Certainly, and of course, aircraft…..

[Wilber]

Certainly, and of course, aircraft…..

Yup, there is no way we could afford a real carrier battle group without beggaring the rest of our military. Maybe not even then unless we tripled our military spending or is that being too optimistic?