Canadian Military or Foreign Aid

[carepov]

New Canadian cuts to it's limited support to NATO, During the last 30 years Canada has degraded it's contribution to NATO to the piont it is today. A few ships in the ATlantic, limited support in Afghanistan, and Lybia, when in comparison to other NATO countries.

http://://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/17/canada-pulls-out-of-nato-airborne-surveillance-programs-to-

http://www.cbc.ca/includes/ads/bbframe.html?ord=7169069780747165&adsite=cbc.news.ca&adzone=politics&adsection=politics&contcat=Politics&adpagetype=story&addcopt=dcopt=ist;&tile=2&pos=tobpox&adexclusions=

And while some of the below articles have little to do with our topic, they do drive the piont that we as a nation are not a huge contributor to NATO, infact we are a small contributor. And that remarks made by our allieds are pionted towards Canada and many other Nations..

As NATO moves forward into the future, many nations are questioning it's usefullness, infact many cracks have already formed, the Creation of ABCA is a sign of that, America, Britian, Canada, Australia, (perhaps New Zealand) these nations already have new defense pacts signed. With such a small organization it becomes nessicary to have a stronger defense force...it also means leaving european AO and concentrating on the pacific area...

http://www.warmuseum.ca/education/online-educational-resources/dispatches/canada-and-nato/

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo7/no2/lawless-anarchiq-eng.asp

http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/Canada%20and%20NATO%20-%20A%20Military%20Assessment.pdf

http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/Is%20NATO%20Still%20Necessary%20for%20Canada.pdf

Don't get me wrong , i am not trying to take anything away from what our military did in Afghanistan or Lybia, what i'm saying is for a nation of 40 mil, and a Mid ranged G-8 nation we could have done alot more....

Your first two links did not work for me. So I cannot see what other NATO countries supported recent missions more than Canada (besides the USA and GB)

Yes, Canada could have done more but we could have done less as well. We did more than our fair share in both Afg. and Libya.

I have not yet read all of :

http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/Canada%20and%20NATO%20-%20A%20Military%20Assessment.pdf

but the conclusions supports my argument that there is no point in trying to invest in all sorts of new (and expensive) capabilities:

"For Lieutenant-Colonel Hope, who experienced first-hand working within the Alliance at the tactical level, Canada should only take part in NATO out of area combat operations if they are supported by US assets. “Canada can fight, as long as the US is there to fill the gaps.”"

[Wilber]

The problem is that what "needs doing" is a gigantic gray area and we are supposed to trust people who cant even fix the potholes in our roads to decide. And its not clear to the electorate what our foreign policy even IS, or what the parties we elect might do. We ignore large humanitarian crisis and conflicts and get involved in small ones. We side with dictators in one conflict, then terrorists in the next. Democracy in one conflict, and autocracy in the next.

And its not altogether clearn whos interests are driving all these policies.

So under these circumstances, I dont think that having interventionist foreign policy is the best interests of Canadians.

I presented that as a general question in response to carepov's assertion that we were doing more than our share. Maybe so in some cases but my point was, do we want to be followers or leaders?

Any foreign policy is always a grey area and always will be because unlike domestic affairs, your options are limited by things you can't control and you are trying to balance Canada's interests against others. It will always be matter of the possible, not the ideal. That is not a case for having no foreign policy at all.

When it comes to being interventionist, humanitarian aid can be just as interventionist as military involvement. In fact, military involvement can be the most suitable form of humanitarian aid depending on the situation. Feeding a despot's people, supports the status quo, military intervention may actually improve things. Different tools for different jobs. The really difficult trick is choosing the right one and applying it properly.

[carepov]

What's fair? If something needs doing, should one step up or wait and see what others do and if they do nothing, use that as an excuse to do nothing themselves?

I presented that as a general question in response to carepov's assertion that we were doing more than our share. Maybe so in some cases but my point was, do we want to be followers or leaders?

Good questions.

In general, if something "needs doing" we should "do what we can". Sometimes we should lead, sometimes we should follow, but we should almost always work with our allies. As stated by Lieutenant-Colonel Hope above, we should not enter major international missions without the US support.

We have to be selective as to what areas we can lead. We can lead in the areas of police and military training. We cannot lead an amphibious assault.

Specifically, we did our part in Afg and Libya. We were correct in staying our of Iraq. To my limited knowledge, the Haiti missions seem to have been successful. Rwanda was a colosal failure (shared with other countries of course). What will the next mission be? Who knows, but we should not fool ourselves into thinking that we can have a military that is "ready for anything".

[Army Guy]

Sorry here they are again.

http://www.warmuseum.ca/education/online-educational-resources/dispatches/canada-and-nato/

http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo7/no2/lawless-anarchiq-eng.asp

[Army Guy]

Your first two links did not work for me. So I cannot see what other NATO countries supported recent missions more than Canada (besides the USA and GB)

Yes, Canada could have done more but we could have done less as well. We did more than our fair share in both Afg. and Libya.

I have not yet read all of :

http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/Canada%20and%20NATO%20-%20A%20Military%20Assessment.pdf

but the conclusions supports my argument that there is no point in trying to invest in all sorts of new (and expensive) capabilities:

"For Lieutenant-Colonel Hope, who experienced first-hand working within the Alliance at the tactical level, Canada should only take part in NATO out of area combat operations if they are supported by US assets. “Canada can fight, as long as the US is there to fill the gaps.”"

Canada has been a small player in Afghan and Libya missions, in regards to the amount of troops and equipment sent on these missions. Many other NATO countries have sent more troops and equip, they have done less with it....and during many press conferences Canadian government made that known "that these nations were not lifting their wieght"....however the 30 years previous we were one of those nations, where we sent troops with major cavets attached...like i said before in yugo we were known as CAN'T Bat 1 and CAN't Bat 2 because of it, meaning we sent over blood and treasure ,but did not want any of that blood spilt." it was a policitcal move only....it was not until 2003 that most of those restrictions were lifted and we actually activily seek out the enemy.....so as far as us pointing the fingers at other nations we have no right....we just recently got in the game....

LtCol Hope point is we have major gaps in our military capabilites, that could only filled by the US due to their surplus in many areas....for example we just recently purchased C-17, and can now move men and equipment in and out operations our x 4 aircraft give us a limited ability .....to get a Battle group in and supplied we would need help from the US...Note a battle group is any where from 1500 to 2500 troops....not a whole lot considering the us routinily moves men, equipment to support over 100,000 in one operation.... those purchases we are planning on , the ones you want to cut are needed not to increase our capabilites in those areas but to maintain status quo....

With major cracks in the NATO organization, the US, GB, CAN, AUStralia have already signed separate defensive pacts hence the ABCA pact.....this is some of the fall out from Afghan and getting other NATO nations to support that mission or haul their share....when that failed...this new coalition was formed.....which is great for Canada because these countries have been carrying their wieght some what...but with a smaller membership that wieght is going to get heavier.....and the missions will different

[carepov]

http://://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/17/canada-pulls-out-of-nato-airborne-surveillance-programs-to-

http://www.cbc.ca/includes/ads/bbframe.html?ord=7169069780747165&adsite=cbc.news.ca&adzone=politics&adsection=politics&contcat=Politics&adpagetype=story&addcopt=dcopt=ist;&tile=2&pos=tobpox&adexclusions=

It was these two links that were broken. I have yet to read any credible analysis stating that Canada's military contributions to NATO or other international military missions have ever fallen short, so I was wondering if this can be found in the above two links (it is not in the other four links). AFAIK we meet all our promises to military allies and my sources indicated that we are "punching above our weight".

Getting back to the OP, I've seen plenty of criticism of Canada falling short of it's commitments to foreign aid, I would rather see more investments in foreign aid than on new military capabilities.

[Guest Derek L]

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.

And the initial rumblings from the Mountain Top:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Troop+reductions+could+table+Canada+defence+chief+says/9185278/story.html

But Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Tom Lawson told reporters Tuesday that personnel cuts could be on the table when military planners present cabinet with options for a new long-term vision for the Canadian Forces in the coming months.

“It’s always an option,” Lawson said following a speech to the Canadian Club in Ottawa. “The direction has not been given to us yet. But you have to provide all kinds of optionality to the government when affordability is an issue.”

And this portion referencing the former CDS harkens back to a conversation Army Guy and I had at another site:

One of Lawson’s predecessors, retired general Rick Hillier, warned in a recent interview that reducing the size of the military was the only way to ensure the force remains strong and stable.

“If we do this right, we can still have an agile force, we can still have a superbly trained force and we can still have a force capable in this era of threats,” Hillier told CTV in September. “But it’s going to be smaller, you just can’t get around it.”

He added that the number of full-time soldiers employed by Canada’s military should be reduced from 68,000 to about 50,000.

As I’ve been preaching for years, Post Afghanistan, no Canadian Government, right or wrong, will expend the required capital on another prolonged land war for generations. As such, Foreign Affairs, DND and Public Safety need to sit down a write a proper, apolitical, White Paper for Canada’s defence requirements.

Only then should a mass reorganization occur.

Of course, retired lieutenant-general Leslie’s recommendations examined further:

But retired lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie, who authored a major report in 2011 on how the military could save money, said there are still many other ways National Defence can find savings without cutting personnel.

“This year alone, (National Defence) has . . . spent over $3.1 billion on professional services, consultants and contractors,” he said. “When we’re talking about cutting people, let’s start there.”

aka bloat.......Most important of all though:

Military planners are in the midst of a major exercise aimed at updating the Conservative government’s centrepiece defence strategy, which was unveiled in 2008 but deemed unaffordable less than three years later.

Lawson said options for the new Canada First Defence Strategy could be presented to cabinet around Christmas, which is when the government could “unpin” its commitment to maintain the military’s current size.

and:

But Lawson reiterated the government has not indicated a desire to cut personnel numbers, and he expressed confidence in a plan rolled out by National Defence several weeks ago that aims to find savings with fewer managers, more centralized contracting and otheractions.

“Everything I will be doing with the leadership team will be looking to find these efficiencies to ensure . . . if we cut personnel, (we) really do it minimally.”

Here's hoping......

[PIK]

It was these two links that were broken. I have yet to read any credible analysis stating that Canada's military contributions to NATO or other international military missions have ever fallen short, so I was wondering if this can be found in the above two links (it is not in the other four links). AFAIK we meet all our promises to military allies and my sources indicated that we are "punching above our weight".

Getting back to the OP, I've seen plenty of criticism of Canada falling short of it's commitments to foreign aid, I would rather see more investments in foreign aid than on new military capabilities.

With all the foriegn aid given out in the past decades, nobody should be living in the ugly conditions as they do live in now. Same goes for the natives. So somethinmg is not working or has never worked. The UN, NATO and every other old organization need to be rethunk. IMO I doubt if 50% of any aid actually reaches the people, it just heads to switzerland.

[carepov]

With all the foriegn aid given out in the past decades, nobody should be living in the ugly conditions as they do live in now. Same goes for the natives. So somethinmg is not working or has never worked. The UN, NATO and every other old organization need to be rethunk. IMO I doubt if 50% of any aid actually reaches the people, it just heads to switzerland.

Some aid is working and some is not.

Since 1994 it has been working in Rwanda:

http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/rwanda/overview

[Army Guy]

I have yet to read any credible analysis stating that Canada's military contributions to NATO or other international military missions have ever fallen short, so I was wondering if this can be found in the above two links (it is not in the other four links). AFAIK we meet all our promises to military allies and my sources indicated that we are "punching above our weight".

Getting back to the OP, I've seen plenty of criticism of Canada falling short of it's commitments to foreign aid, I would rather see more investments in foreign aid than on new military capabilities.

Then do some research, I've given you the time frames, all you have to do is look, NATO in europe during the cold war, Canada cuts back, Yugo peace keeping US and British armies nick name us CAN'T Bat 1 & 2 because of our caveats , Afghanistan, the early years (excluding the intial PPCLI commitment) we move into Kabul with major Caveats because they did not want any more coffins coming home......

"Punching above our wieght was a Canadian made feel good slogan invented to have Canadians feel good about their military and the job they were doing, it was not until we moved south that we lifted the caveats....Then out come the slogans, and then the complaining about the others not lifting as much as we were....we had just gotten into the game, i often wondered how it must of looked to US and British troops who had been doing the lifting from day one.....

Your sources are wrong, the proof is in the pudding, look at NORAD, here is an defense agreement between the US and Canada, it's simple really, one would think that between two nations it should be a 50/ 50 split, guess again, do some research and find out who foots the bill for the lions share, for defense over our own air space....

NATO, what do we contribute to NATO, again if you do some research you'd be surprised at how little we do contribute...

ABCA, we contribute even less to this agreement, and yet we as Canadians expect them to fully comit to us in any event, be it war, natural disaster, etc....

Canadians are good at repeating that same old question, "who are we preparing to defend ourselfs again'st....Here is their answers....." we don't have any enemies....none with any capabilities ....or the US will stop them so why bother.... and that ladies and gentlemen is what i call supporting our troops......

The men and women that have seen through all the smoke and bullshit and decided that defending ourselfs is not a bad idea....And they are going to do that regardless of what you think or say or what our government cuts back....So spend what ever you like on foreign aid, feel good projects, you can come with all kinds of excuses, of why or why not ...

But you should also come on down to trenton,and watch them off loading the coffins, watch the whole process...then ask yourself was giving that funding to some totally stranger worth all that or could i have made one of our own citizens alittle safer by providing the equipment they need to do the job we asked them to do. We as a nation are not looking at world domination, nor competing with the US in the size of our penises....we are looking at be able to stand up, for our own defence...and stand up for those that can not....such as your 3 rd world nations....

[carepov]

Then do some research, I've given you the time frames, all you have to do is look, NATO in europe during the cold war, Canada cuts back, Yugo peace keeping US and British armies nick name us CAN'T Bat 1 & 2 because of our caveats , Afghanistan, the early years (excluding the intial PPCLI commitment) we move into Kabul with major Caveats because they did not want any more coffins coming home......

"Punching above our wieght was a Canadian made feel good slogan invented to have Canadians feel good about their military and the job they were doing, it was not until we moved south that we lifted the caveats....Then out come the slogans, and then the complaining about the others not lifting as much as we were....we had just gotten into the game, i often wondered how it must of looked to US and British troops who had been doing the lifting from day one.....

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

Your sources are wrong, the proof is in the pudding, look at NORAD, here is an defense agreement between the US and Canada, it's simple really, one would think that between two nations it should be a 50/ 50 split, guess again, do some research and find out who foots the bill for the lions share, for defense over our own air space....

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

NATO, what do we contribute to NATO, again if you do some research you'd be surprised at how little we do contribute...

ABCA, we contribute even less to this agreement, and yet we as Canadians expect them to fully comit to us in any event, be it war, natural disaster, etc....

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.

Canadians are good at repeating that same old question, "who are we preparing to defend ourselfs again'st....Here is their answers....." we don't have any enemies....none with any capabilities ....or the US will stop them so why bother.... and that ladies and gentlemen is what i call supporting our troops......

The men and women that have seen through all the smoke and bullshit and decided that defending ourselfs is not a bad idea....And they are going to do that regardless of what you think or say or what our government cuts back....So spend what ever you like on foreign aid, feel good projects, you can come with all kinds of excuses, of why or why not ...

But you should also come on down to trenton,and watch them off loading the coffins, watch the whole process...then ask yourself was giving that funding to some totally stranger worth all that or could i have made one of our own citizens alittle safer by providing the equipment they need to do the job we asked them to do. We as a nation are not looking at world domination, nor competing with the US in the size of our penises....we are looking at be able to stand up, for our own defence...and stand up for those that can not....such as your 3 rd world nations....

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!

[bush_cheney2004]

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

Please search harder, as Army Guy speaks the truth. During Operation Allied Force (Kosovo 1999), Canada's CF-18 squadrons lacked basic NATO updates for radio comms, data links, and IFF. Targeting pods had to be scrounged from training birds back home. Canada had to go shopping at the American depot (Aviano) for more munitions and other kit.

[carepov]

Please search harder, as Army Guy speaks the truth. During Operation Allied Force (Kosovo 1999), Canada's CF-18 squadrons lacked basic NATO updates for radio comms, data links, and IFF. Targeting pods had to be scrounged from training birds back home. Canada had to go shopping at the American depot (Aviano) for more munitions and other kit.

Renting and buyng parts and equipment from allies is not under-contributing - it's teamwork.

[bush_cheney2004]

Renting and buyng parts and equipment from allies is not under-contributing - it's teamwork.

Oh sure it is...it's teamwork to hitch rides to Afghanistan in 2002 because Canada didn't invest in more airlift. It's team work to rely on American and other NATO aircraft because Canada sold its Chinooks to save money, directly resulting in more Canadian Forces KIAs. It's teamwork to not deploy a single squadron of CF-18's, because that would leave too few resources to meet domestic and NORAD obligations. It was "too hard".

Yay teamwork...let some other nation pick up the tab.

[Guest Derek L]

Oh sure it is...it's teamwork to hitch rides to Afghanistan in 2002 because Canada didn't invest in more airlift. It's team work to rely on American and other NATO aircraft because Canada sold its Chinooks to save money, directly resulting in more Canadian Forces KIAs. It's teamwork to not deploy a single squadron of CF-18's, because that would leave too few resources to meet domestic and NORAD obligations. It was "too hard".

Yay teamwork...let some other nation pick up the tab.

One needs not look further then post-Bonnie MARCOM for an example of mailing in NATO contributions……especially as rust-out began to occur under the Trudeau governments of the 70s, coupled with the obsolete equipment of that period that thankfully never had to fend off Soviet surface, sub-surface and airborne threats, namely their early cruise missiles…..Of course outside the Tribal’s, defending against such threats with nothing moor then a 3”/ 50 or 70 gun……

[carepov]

Oh sure it is...it's teamwork to hitch rides to Afghanistan in 2002 because Canada didn't invest in more airlift. It's team work to rely on American and other NATO aircraft because Canada sold its Chinooks to save money, directly resulting in more Canadian Forces KIAs. It's teamwork to not deploy a single squadron of CF-18's, because that would leave too few resources to meet domestic and NORAD obligations. It was "too hard".

Yay teamwork...let some other nation pick up the tab.

Your Secretary Gates said that we were "punching above our weight", i.e we were good team players.

Sharing resources is good teamwork. Rescuing hostages is good teamwork.

[Wilber]

Your Secretary Gates said that we were "punching above our weight", i.e we were good team players.

Sharing resources is good teamwork. Rescuing hostages is good teamwork.

What do you mean we? It wasn't you or me.

[Guest Derek L]

Your Secretary Gates said that we were "punching above our weight", i.e we were good team players.

Sharing resources is good teamwork. Rescuing hostages is good teamwork.

“Punching above your weight” is an idiom for one doing something that was not expected of them……..and for the record the Dutch, Danes, Australians, Poles etc were also deemed to be “punching above their weight” in Afghanistan…….Of course the phrase is used as a measure of judgement against the lacklustre initial contributions made by much larger NATO partners…..namely the French, Germans and Italians……

[Guest Derek L]

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!

No, that was me.

[carepov]

“Punching above your weight” is an idiom for one doing something that was not expected of them……..

I took it as "doing more than our fair share", "overcontributing".

What do you mean we? It wasn't you or me.

Canada.

[Guest Derek L]

I took it as "doing more than our fair share", "overcontributing".

No, it's a boxing term........or better put, David punched above his weight in his defeat of Goliath....

[bush_cheney2004]

I took it as "doing more than our fair share", "overcontributing".

That's not what it means to me. Sec'y Gates was aknowledging Canada's continued contribution given a chronic lack of resources (from chronic underfunding) and a willingness to engage with the enemy despite this, unlike some other NATO/ISAF partners.

[carepov]

That's not what it means to me. Sec'y Gates was aknowledging Canada's continued contribution given a chronic lack of resources (from chronic underfunding) and a willingness to engage with the enemy despite this, unlike some other NATO/ISAF partners.

No, it's a boxing term........or better put, David punched above his weight in his defeat of Goliath....

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?

[Wilber]

More a compliment to the people who were doing the punching, not to Canada. If you don't weigh much, it is difficult to accomplish a lot even if you punch above it

[bush_cheney2004]

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?

You can find it yourself in the very same sources "complimenting" Canada:

...Predictably, every non-U.S. NATO member also commits far fewer funds or troops in combat than we do. The U.S. spends 4.7% of our GDP on defense, which is almost twice the percentage France spends and more than three times what Germany pays in. Gates did cite Norway, Denmark, Belgium and Canada for "punch(ing) well above their weight" fighting in Libya, but then turned that praise into his most damning critique overall. "The mightiest military alliance in history," Gates said, "is only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a sparsely populated country — yet many allies are beginning to run short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the difference."

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