Canada Gives Up Military Independence

[Big Guy]

For many, many years, our Canadian military was under the control and direction of Britain. As a former colony we were not taken very seriously by the British but allowed into conflicts under the command and direction of London. During the first world war, at Vimy Ridge, Canadians shook off their colonial constraints and established the Canadian forces as an independent national military.

Now our current government is prepared to make Canada subservient to yet another nation - the USA!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-canadian-us-integrated-force-1.3247362

So now we will be allowed to spend $billions of Canadian taxpayer money on F-35's or 36's or whatever else the USA will sell us and then we will be given the opportunity to put Canadian soldiers into those military vehicles and go where and do what the Americans tell us to do.

The rationale has been spun as :"The Canadian military has been working on a plan to create with the United States a bi-national integrated military force to deploy to hot spots around the world. The so-called Canada-U.S. Integrated Forces would be the result of an agreement between the two countries under which air, sea, land and special operations forces would be jointly deployed under unified command, outside Canada."

Sure, Canada with its limited military and the USA with the biggest military in the world and a policy of unlimited spending will get together and take turns deciding when, where and how this new military force will be applied. Believe that and I got a bridge in Windsor to sell you!

Harper appears ready to sell out our independence of which conflicts we choose to participate in and which have nothing to do with us. The bright lights surrounding him are telling us that "military officials from both countries were seeking to align some forces in a permanent and formal arrangement."

Hello!! Harper's administration wants us to be absorbed into an American dominated association "in a permanent and formal arrangement"?

What the h$ll is going on?

Our forbearers fought and died so that Canada could make independent decisions of when , where, how and if it decides to use military force. Now these $^&*^#% in Ottawa want to give away our independence.

I wonder if we will be allowed to keep our currency and maybe our national anthem.

[Freddy]

Yes please. This only solidifies the un written arrangement we already have with the USA. This is a step in the right direction.

[The_Squid]

What a terrible idea. We need military independence... like when we said no to the Iraqi invasion. That decision saved soldier's lives and untold billions out of our economy.

Harper was all for it. Tells you all you need to know about his lack of judgement.

[On Guard for Thee]

What a terrible idea. We need military independence... like when we said no to the Iraqi invasion. That decision saved soldier's lives and untold billions out of our economy.

Harper was all for it. Tells you all you need to know about his lack of judgement.

Very good points. Especially when it sees to me like this agreement may oblige us to join in military action that may be pointless, or even illegal. In the US they typically flip flop between dem. and rep. governments, so that means they are due for a switch next election. Can you imagine if they vote in the likes of Bush and Cheney again? Who needs their government to be guilty of war crimes!

[Moonlight Graham]

From the OP article:

The briefing note, released to CBC News under the Access to Information Act, was written in October 2013. It contemplates how the military could remain globally engaged as Afghan training mission was coming to a close.

Daniel Proussalidis, a spokesman from the defence minister's office, said in an email to CBC News that the document was not presented to the minister and the government has not considered its contents.

It was just a briefing note from 2013. This isn't policy to be implemented. So much do about nothing.

[Signals.Cpl]

Wherever we go, whatever we do with the military, at this point in time we really don't have the means to get our troops, equipment and vehicles into a war zone, supplied and if necessary out of a war zone without logistical support from the US at least in the moment. I don't see why people are complaining, if we are not willing to fund a military on our own, we might as well have a back up plan to remain even remotely relevant on the international stage.

[Derek 2.0]

During the First World War, Canada (like the other Commonwealth nations) fought in Europe under the unified command of the British Expeditionary Force, led by British Field Marshall Douglas Haig.

During the Second War, Canadians fought under numerous unified command structures, from the RCAF’s contribution to the Battle of Britain and the bombing of Nazi controlled Europe well under command of the Royal Air Force. Inversely, the Royal Canadian Navy, under Canadian Rear Admiral Leonard Murray, led a unified command structure in the Northern Atlantic combining the RCN and Royal Navy (and a lesser extent the USN and USCG) in the fight against Nazi U-Boats. Likewise, the Canadian army, in Italy, Northern France and then Holland was under the unified British command, under the leadership of Field Marshall Sir Bernard Montgomery. (Devil’s Brigade aside)

During the Korean War, the Canadian army was under the unified command of the British Commonwealth Division. The RCN contribution came under the command of the British Far Eastern Fleet, which then came under the unified command of the USN’s Task Force 96.8.

Through the Cold War, at various stage, the Canadian Armed Forces contributing to NATO have been under the unified command of British, American and joint NATO commands. Our Contribution to UN Peacekeeping through the decades has always been under unified commands (at times led by Canadians). And of course, NORAD, which has been a unified American-Canadian command since its inception. Likewise Stabilization missions in East Timor and Haiti. During the GWOT, Canadian Forces have been under the command (and have commanded) joint US-NATO forces. Likewise Operation in Libya and now Iraq/Syria.

This draft agreement is simply a proposed continuance of past, joint, partnerships, and simply allows ease of integration between US-Canadian Forces going forward…….no need for tin-foil hats.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Derek 2.0

[Maybe]

Great post OP. Canada must stand strong on its own, and stay out of other people's wars and oil grabs.

[Smallc]

This article is being mischaracterized and misrepresented. It's not about integrating our entire force, and it isn't even a potential possibility at the moment.

[bush_cheney2004]

This article is being mischaracterized and misrepresented. It's not about integrating our entire force, and it isn't even a potential possibility at the moment.

Maybe, but it is not far off. Canadian Forces have long "hitched rides" from the U.S. military, and there we several reports that CFs in Afghanistan were far more effective when integrated with U.S. assets compared to NATO's red tape. Before buying its own C-177s, Canada was dependent on heavy airlift from the USAF and other leased resources (e.g. Somalia 1992). Loss of Preserver and Protecteur supply ships forces Canada into more international leasing contracts and integration with deployed U.S. assets.

Politically, they cannot be seen as "integrated", but from an operational vantage point, they have been for a very long time.

[Derek 2.0]

Loss of Preserver and Protecteur supply ships forces Canada into more international leasing contracts and integration with deployed U.S. assets.

I beg to differ, the Royal Canadian Navy, the only navy to do so, has been able to fully integrate within USN task forces for decades, and has done so in several military operations. From the First Gulf War, taking command of a portion of the Persian Gulf, providing interdiction, escorting and logistic support to coalition vessels:

http://www.icebergpublishing.com/content/uploads/2014/03/AN-Protecteur-Wisconsin1.png

To the GWOT, integrating with USN carrier strike groups and conducting interdiction yet again in the Gulf:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/US_Navy_040625-N-9769P-082_The_Canadian_destroyer_HMCS_Algonquin_(DDG_283)_is_shown_underway_in_close_formation_with_the_Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier_USS_John_C._Stennis_(CVN_74)_and_the_guided_missile_frigate_USS_Ford_(FFG_54.jpg

To Operation Iraqi Freedom ("which we didn't take part in"), escorting the Bataan expeditionary strike group in the Gulf, in the lead up to and during the commencement of hostilities with Iraq:

http://storage.torontosun.com/v1/dynamic_resize/sws_path/suns-prod-images/1331094932042_ORIGINAL.jpg?quality=80&size=650x

One could argue that the increased tempo of the RCN during Operation Apollo/GWOT has led to its current sad state, likewise the forced reboot of the replacement programs that the current Government was forced into……inversely, said tempo and lacklustre replacement program is not only an issue facing the RCN, with the USN currently at the lowest readiness levels its seen since the Carter Administration, shipbuilding flops as made evident by the LCS program, Zumwalt DDG program, LPD-17 class, Flight III Burkes not replacing now retired Spruance destroyers and OHP frigates at a fast enough rate, the decrepit state of the Ticonderoga cruisers (no replacement in site) and a submarine replacement program resulting in a net-decrease in fast attack numbers. Right now, a first in over 30 years, there is not a single USN carrier in the Persian gulf, a once stalwart ceded currently to the French MN, a result of the once proud USS Enterprise being worked to death years earlier than expected, and delays in its replacement, the USS Ford.

Suffice to say, a decade plus of continual operations has led to a period of renewal for both our navies, despite this though, our two navies will continue to have a positive relationship into the future.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Charles Anthony
reduced posted images to hyperlinks

[bush_cheney2004]

....Suffice to say, a decade plus of continual operations has led to a period of renewal for both our navies, despite this though, our two navies will continue to have a positive relationship into the future.

Different topic entirely....Canada now has a hard gap in replenishment and refueling capability that required leased assets (Chile & Spain ?). USN deployments do not pivot on the availability of Canadian Forces assets.

This ball has been dropped badly by successive governments.

Edited September 29, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

I beg to differ

please sir! Those images offer nothing... I trust the moderator does not come out and (also) charge you with "image trolling"!

[Derek 2.0]

Different topic entirely....Canada now has a hard gap in replenishment and refueling capability that required leased assets (Chile & Spain ?). USN deployments do not pivot on the availability of Canadian Forces assets.

Sure, the lack of surface ASW assets and its own replenishment capability (nearly cut in half the in the last several years) in the USN doesn't mater when its tied up in Norfolk:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Fleet-003-US-VA-Norfolk-20121220-N-ZN152-189.jpg

A sight not seen since the USN had 15 active carriers in the 80s......as they say about those that live in glass houses......

Edited September 29, 2015 by Charles Anthony
reduced posted images to hyperlink

[Derek 2.0]

please sir! Those images offer nothing... I trust the moderator does not come out and (also) charge you with "image trolling"!

I beg to differ, images of integrated (the topic of this thread) Canadian-US forces serve two purposes, first are harder to refute in the context of the OP, that suggests this is a new concept for the Canadian Forces. Second, it demonstrates to our American poster, again pictures are harder to refute then mere words, the nature of our collective relationship, a relationship that saw Canadians fill a role in the US military left vacant by its own downsizing.

[waldo]

I beg to differ

you don't source your graphics (by the by... that's against forum rules), nor do you really speak to what the graphics present. "Military/war porn", no less!

.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sure, the lack of surface ASW assets and its own replenishment capability (nearly cut in half the in the last several years) in the USN doesn't mater when its tied up in Norfolk:

A sight not seen since the USN had 15 active carriers in the 80s......as they say about those that live in glass houses......

The ASW and 'Gator fleets have been purposely defunded for other priorities...even before sequestration. U.S. shipbuilding is plenty busy kicking out multiyear buys of surface combatants, patrol, submarine, and carrier platforms. The Military Sealift Command (MSC) has many active and reserve assets available for deployment. One of them, USNS Salvor (ARS-52), towed HMCS Protecteur from Hawaii to CFB Esquimalt.

Pointing to integrated CanAm deployments does not address the gap in Canadian shipbuilding, aging tactical aircraft, medium rotary winged airlift capability, etc.

Edited September 29, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[On Guard for Thee]

The ASW and 'Gator fleets have been purposely defunded for other priorities...even before sequestration. U.S. shipbuilding is plenty busy kicking out multiyear buys of surface combatants, patrol, submarine, and carrier platforms. The Military Sealift Command (MSC) has many active and reserve assets available for deployment. One of them, USNS Salvor (ARS-52), towed HMCS Protecteur from Hawaii to CFB Esquimalt.

Thanks for the tow. Let us know when you need to go pick up an F 35 pilot and we will return the favor.

[Derek 2.0]

you don't source your graphics (by the by... that's against forum rules), nor do you really speak to what the graphics present. "Military/war porn", no less!

.

The graphics are easily sourced by right click-open image in new tab, likewise, in both posts I speak directly to what each image represents in text.

[waldo]

The graphics are easily sourced by right click-open image in new tab, likewise, in both posts I speak directly to what each image represents in text.

no! That doesn't fly... invariably, a direct graphic link does not afford an immediate attachment to the related/associated source article. Again, the graphics add little, if anything that can't be conveyed in words. And again, I'm quite familiar with the moderator's "aversion" to, as he describes it, "image trolling".

[bush_cheney2004]

The tone of the OP article is telling....while some integration is desired, command and control remains a political concern for both nations. Reading between the lines, Canada appears to be seeking a way to keep well trained special forces capable and relevant.

Military planners advised the chief of the defence staff the proposed integrated force would help Canada "demonstrate a continuing commitment to the U.S." They also say "close engagement with the U.S. will enable the achievement of other [Canadian] regional strategic objectives."

The planning work laid out a series of potential missions for Canadian troops overseas in order "to support government of Canada objectives internationally" and "under the assumption that current CAF operational commitments abroad will be maintained."

Can or would JTF-2 assets ever deploy on an expeditionary mission without U.S/NATO support ? What level of operational "independence" has ever existed ?

Edited September 29, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Derek 2.0]

The ASW and 'Gator fleets have been purposely defunded for other priorities...even before sequestration. U.S. shipbuilding is plenty busy kicking out multiyear buys of surface combatants, patrol, submarine, and carrier platforms. The Military Sealift Command (MSC) has many active and reserve assets available for deployment. One of them, USNS Salvor (ARS-52), towed HMCS Protecteur from Hawaii to CFB Esquimalt.

The entire Carrier Strike Force Atlantic and ~80% of the East coast amphib fleet, alongside, defunded, doesn't represent a deterrent to would be foes, with the realization that a fighting force needs to be an active force, and in the advent of a national emergency, would require a period of work-ups directly squared to the period of inactivity.

MSC has been cut in half in recent years, and the "reserve fleet" is only slightly more viable an asset than vessels on a beach in Bangladesh.......

Pointing to integrated CanAm deployments does not address the gap in Canadian shipbuilding, aging tactical aircraft, medium rotary winged airlift capability, etc.

Likewise, does it address the associated gaps in USN shipbuilding, your aging tactical aircraft, nor the near block obsolescence of the vast majority of the analog-avionics based rotary wing fleet.......we've replaced our Sea Kings, yet you still fly your Commander in Chief around in one:

This all being said, it goes back to the mutually beneficial relationships that our two nations have in countless respects, including a tightly bound working partnership on defence (note with a "c" not an "s") interests of both our nations.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Charles Anthony
removed image [img=http://www.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_free_images/0519-0908-2414-3802_president_barack_obama_and_first_lady_micelle_obama_walking_to_marine_one_helicopter_o.jpg]

[bush_cheney2004]

...This all being said, it goes back to the mutually beneficial relationships that our two nations have in countless respects, including a tightly bound working partnership on defence (note with a "c" not an "s") interests of both our nations.

If such funding levels were/are so important to impressing "foes", then Canada has certainly been far more negligent. U.S. armed forces budget decisions and capabilities are not a substitute for the tools of Canadian sovereignty and independence. If Canada wants to press the BFF issue for partnerships, do it through NATO...and bring some beer to the party.

The mutually beneficial relationship reminds me of a Johnny Carson marriage.

Edited September 29, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Derek 2.0]

If such funding levels were/are so important to impressing "foes", then Canada has certainly been far more negligent. U.S. armed forces budget decisions and capabilities are not a substitute for the tools of Canadian sovereignty and independence. If Canada wants to press the BFF issue for partnerships, do it through NATO...and bring some beer to the party.

That might be so, but going forward, the United States will become increasingly reliant on partnerships with groups like NATO to meet its own defence needs.........Fore, right now, today, the State of your armed forces is reminiscent of that of the British forces circa 1950.....rapid decline.

The mutually beneficial relationship reminds me of a Johnny Carson marriage.

And the state of the US military reminds me of Mike Tyson, living on past glory, and though it appears imposing from afar, is actually bankrupt.

[bush_cheney2004]

That might be so, but going forward, the United States will become increasingly reliant on partnerships with groups like NATO to meet its own defence needs.........Fore, right now, today, the State of your armed forces is reminiscent of that of the British forces circa 1950.....rapid decline.

I'm OK with that....spending levels are too high. The U.S. is not responsible for funding an armed forces that can be all things to all nations that don't wish to spend anywhere near as much. Canada has been in decline far longer.

And the state of the US military reminds me of Mike Tyson, living on past glory, and though it appears imposing from afar, is actually bankrupt.

Agreed...no more money for Cold War scale and scope. Canada can decide to spend more or spend less (if that's even possible).

Edited September 29, 2015 by bush_cheney2004