Liberals party defence review

[bush_cheney2004]

I refer to the Powell doctrine because it comes with experience. Powell was a very intelligent fellow and still managed to do well in spite of dealing with prejudice, common to all Americans, at the time. He is also one of the very few to be understand and be successful in the military and political theater.

Sec'y Powell's "doctrine" applies to the USA, not Canada, which is mostly incapable of executing any such policies. Powell was a big GO! for Afghanistan.

Powell does have an advantage in military strategy in being an American. The Americans are a nation with the most experience in war since they have been in so many especially the last few years.

That's why his "doctrine" applies to the United States, not Canada.

The Americans have also lost so many (Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia etc.) that Powell would have have a pretty good idea on how to avoid another loss.

So Canada has not lost many in wars ? This will come as a surprise to many Canadians and their families.

[dre]

Your worried about the conditions in which our forces are sent, but is that not putting the cart before the horse....lets ensure they are equipped before we send them any where.....

THAT is putting the cart before the horse. We cant equip until we define their role. That's why we need public consultation. Do we want to build nations? Do we want to fight other peoples civil wars? Do we want to limit our role to homeland defense, or do we want to police the world on the tax payers dime?

We need a well defined Military Strategy Doctrine that Canadians support and until we have that spending is likely to be misdirected and initiatives are not likely to enjoy persistent support from the taxpayers that have to pay the bills.

Once we have that we can decide what to buy... Do we need tanks? Boats? Strategic Bombers? ICBM's? Nukes? AA Batteries? Engineering Capabilities?

[waldo]

I refer to the Powell doctrine because it comes with experience. Powell was a very intelligent fellow and still managed to do well in spite of dealing with prejudice, common to all black Americans. He is also one of the very few to understand and be successful in the military and political theater.

Powell does have an advantage in military strategy in being an American. The Americans are a nation with the most experience in war since they have been in so many especially the last few years.

The Americans have also lost so many (Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia etc.) that Powell would have a pretty good idea on how to avoid another loss.

I expect you know there is no 'formal doctrine' per se... you can't point to a "Powell Doctrine" document. That experience/perspective "warrior" Colin Powell relied upon to initially craft his thinking was quite clearly rendered mute when "diplomat" Colin Powell butted up against Bush/Cheney and the neo-Cons. In any case, the "doctrine" is generic enough that it most certainly fits the boilerplate labeling... notwithstanding the fevered rush by this board's usual suspect to cry out whining over some kind of egregious Canadian plagiarism simply because you happened to reference it!

.

[Army Guy]

So your not concerned about our soldiers health and welfare, your primary concern is nothing more than optics....

Our government has never looked at how small our nations military is, before sending it off to the worlds holiday spots.....But I guess that fact blows right by you....as all the rest of the facts.....

[Army Guy]

THAT is putting the cart before the horse. We cant equip until we define their role. That's why we need public consultation. Do we want to build nations? Do we want to fight other peoples civil wars? Do we want to limit our role to homeland defense, or do we want to police the world on the tax payers dime?

We need a well defined Military Strategy Doctrine that Canadians support and until we have that spending is likely to be misdirected and initiatives are not likely to enjoy persistent support from the taxpayers that have to pay the bills.

Once we have that we can decide what to buy... Do we need tanks? Boats? Strategic Bombers? ICBM's? Nukes? AA Batteries? Engineering Capabilities?

We already have a well defined Military strategic doctrine, one that has been whittled down to the basics, one that DND struggles with daily. but can not accomplish all at the same time...we continue to look for ways to decrease our nations military based on cost...and cost alone...This is my concern if we are looking at the bottom dollar then disband the entire department instead of killing it with a thousand cuts, like what is happening right now....

We are asking the people of Canada to assist in creating documents that will have tremendous impact on this nation...many of those impacts are not discussed in any form...What our government has done is puked up a bunch of questions to a subject that the public has not been fully educated on....kind of like giving the test out before the class has been taught...And these results will be used how.....to gauge how little the public knows about our security apparatus....or to justify a renewed Strategic doctrine...

Even you must be able to see the results will be skewed....Educate the public first.....then by all means create a document that will be useful.....right now all it is doing is dividing the country into, pro military or anti military camps....with neither side really knowing the who, what, where, and how of the problem....does that make sense....

Shit we can not even find consensus here on this forum, at yet we are going to take this on a national level....

It has been my experience that when our government sits down and talks about anything military, it results in one of two things, lots of broken promises, then reductions when the cost come back.... or lots of reductions...So when Liberals talk about re defining our roles all the alarm bells start ringing....

[dre]

We already have a well defined Military strategic doctrine, one that has been whittled down to the basics, one that DND struggles with daily. but can not accomplish all at the same time...we continue to look for ways to decrease our nations military based on cost...and cost alone...This is my concern if we are looking at the bottom dollar then disband the entire department instead of killing it with a thousand cuts, like what is happening right now....

That's why there needs to be a formal doctrine that the government is bound to. If we want to have a very small inexpensive military then we cant ask them to police the world, fight other peoples civil wars, etc. If we DO want to have an interventionalist foreign policy then we should probably double or triple spending.

We should also directly bill Canadians for the costs and not pay for things like Operation: Abject Failure out of general revenues or the defense budget. Each month we spend involved in a project like Afghanistan an additional tax should be levied against every Canadian to cover the costs, replace equipment, purchase new equipment etc.

I would PERSONALLY prefer a non-interventionalist doctrine such as Sweden's MSD that only allows for direct homeland defense. I don't want to pay for anything beyond that. But I understand that I'm just one person and that other Canadians might feel different.

[Big Guy]

What was the last successful military conflict in which Canada was actively involved and in which America was not the instigator or the major player?

We keep getting involved in civil wars that cause us nothing but grief. You would think we had learned after the Somalia affair.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Big Guy

[Wilber]

There was no defeat of the Iraqi armed forces. They simply shed their uniforms and fought as insurgents under a number of different groups.

There was a complete defeat of the Iraqi armed forces. The military was asked if they could defeat Saddam's army, They said yes and they did. It was the politicians who never figured it out, they were all about regime change and turning the Middle East into some kind of democratic paradise.

A huge commitment was made to Operation: Abject Failure. Western nations spent somewhere around 5 trillion dollars on the projects. They didn't fail because of a lack of resources, they failed because Civilian, Military, and Intelligence officials underestimated the resilience of the asymmetric resistance that would inevitably follow the toppling of existing regimes.

Canada's commitment in Afghanistan wouldn't even register compared to its commitment in the World Wars.

And there are broader questions in play here that we as a nation have to ponder. Do Canadians want to pay for incompetent "world policing" and other types of global socialism. Do we want of pay for nation building projects in other countries when we are told we aren't even paying enough taxes to keep our own infrastructure up to date? Do we want to pay for intervention into other peoples civil wars? Do we want to pay for to keep arbitrary borders intact in places like Iraq and Syria... Borders that make no sense and disenfranchise 10's of millions of people and generate perpetual conflict. Do we want to pay for humanitarian missions? If so... how much? Do we want a big military or a small one?

You don't have to be an expert to have an opinion or provide feedback on any of these questions. They aren't questions with objectively right or wrong answers, they are questions for Canadians on what we want our role and our capabilities to be, and how much resources we want to allocate.

So why not be upfront and just ask whether we want to be an isolationist country, hoping all the bad stuff will just pass us by.

[Wilber]

Is there not a danger then that we have a very well equipped military looking for a war in which to participate?

Why would you think our military would ever unilaterally go to war without the direction of Parliament? What reason would they have for doing so? What do you think they are going to do? Oh we can kick these guy's asses, let's have a go at them just for fun. You really have a very low opinion of the people who serve in our military.

[dre]

There was a complete defeat of the Iraqi armed forces. The military was asked if they could defeat Saddam's army, They said yes and they did. It was the politicians who never figured it out, they were all about regime change and turning the Middle East into some kind of democratic paradise.

Canada's commitment in Afghanistan wouldn't even register compared to its commitment in the World Wars.

So why not be upfront and just ask whether we want to be an isolationist country, hoping all the bad stuff will just pass us by.

The military was asked if they could defeat Saddam's army, They said yes and they did.

No they were asked if they could provide security and stability in the post baathist era and train Iraqi security forces. They failed abysmally, got hundreds of thousands of people killed, turned the place into a breeding ground for extremism and safe haven for terrorists, and created ISIL.

Oops!

And the Iraq war still isn't over. It just changed into an insurgency / civil war and its still going on nearly 15 years later. Whats worse is that now Canada has been dumb enough to get involved.

[bush_cheney2004]

... Whats worse is that now Canada has been dumb enough to get involved.

Canada was already involved with bombing, sanctioning, and strangling Iraq long before now....and 2003.

[Derek 2.0]

you certainly had no qualms in laying down your "fluff & failure" benchmarks... yet somehow you can't manage to state what survey weightings would correspond to your declared benchmarks. And per norm you jump into your ready-reach deflection routine when you're challenged to do so - go figure!

.

Of course I can't state the survey's weighting.......as I said numerous times, that is not forthcoming from the Liberal Government..............

there was a very pointed grouped list you responded to with the following... perhaps you should review exactly what you responded to and what experts you were referencing when you stated, "........in each one of your examples, politics superseded the "experts" advice, politics aimed at the uninformed public that you feel should have further input."

I think its you that needs the review........clearly the member stated the claim the war would be won inside a couple of months, and my response was to said claim, as an example among the many statements made in his original post.

the key point is you're in such a fabricated, fake tizzy over the process component that has the government offering an open survey soliciting input from the Canadian public. Perhaps you can run that into showcasing yet another flavour of your oft presented hypocrisy with the following: in 2014, DND and CAF commissioned a study: --- bloody hell! Looking to the general public to aid in decision making and information requirements!

Where is the hypocrisy? None the less, your cited report is apples to oranges with this current Government's survey........one is an opinion poll, the other, a survey asking for uninformed opinions to foment government policy.........that is, unless what you suggest is true, and this is but a feel-good exercise.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[waldo]

Of course I can't state the survey's weighting.......as I said numerous times, that is not forthcoming from the Liberal Government..............

how droll! Again, nothing to do with the actual government weightings (whatever they may be)... you established 2 benchmarks; either the results will be, as you stated, "fluff" or they'll be "failure". Your weightings... you can keep plying your silly buggar routine to deflect away from actually answering. What weighting (YOUR weighting) aligns with your "fluff" declaration; what weighting (YOUR weighting) aligns with your "failure" declaration? YOUR benchmarks, YOUR weightings?

.

I think its you that needs the review........clearly the member stated the claim the war would be won inside a couple of months, and my response was to said claim, as an example among the many statements made in his original post.

no worries - just another example where you make a statement, you're challenged to clarify/support your statement, and you go into your 'shuck & jive' deflection routine to avoid answering. Just another case that highlights beginning any discussion with you is an absolute waste of time.

.

Where is the hypocrisy? None the less, your cited report is apples to oranges with this current Government's survey........one is an opinion poll, the other, a survey asking for uninformed opinions to foment government policy.........that is, unless what you suggest is true, and this is but a feel-good exercise.

no - in both cases, the DND/CAF and the Canadian Government are both contacting the general public to guide decision making... thanks for reinforcing your hypocrisy by accepting one approach and presenting your fake/fabricated concern for the other.

.

[waldo]

a question by question guide in responding to the Defence Policy Review survey:

DEFENCE POLICY REVIEW — Public Consultation Document

.

[Derek 2.0]

a question by question guide in responding to the Defence Policy Review survey:

DEFENCE POLICY REVIEW — Public Consultation Document

.

Said questions have already been quoted......

[Derek 2.0]

how droll! Again, nothing to do with the actual government weightings (whatever they may be)... you established 2 benchmarks; either the results will be, as you stated, "fluff" or they'll be "failure". Your weightings... you can keep plying your silly buggar routine to deflect away from actually answering. What weighting (YOUR weighting) aligns with your "fluff" declaration; what weighting (YOUR weighting) aligns with your "failure" declaration? YOUR benchmarks, YOUR weightings?

.

For failure? In my view, that would be the Liberals giving more weight (and in turn base policy) to the uninformed public then experts......very simple.

no - in both cases, the DND/CAF and the Canadian Government are both contacting the general public to guide decision making... thanks for reinforcing your hypocrisy by accepting one approach and presenting your fake/fabricated concern for the other

What information was being sought, and in turn, used as a guide, with the 2014 opinion poll you cited?

[waldo]

Said questions have already been quoted......

thanks Captain Obvious... has this accompanying 'consultation guide' document also been presented? The document that aligns, question by question, with the survey? Don't bother responding as I've reached my 'this go-around limit' of dealing with your continued nonsense.

.

[Derek 2.0]

thanks Captain Obvious... has this accompanying 'consultation guide' document also been presented? The document that aligns, question by question, with the survey? Don't bother responding as I've reached my 'this go-around limit' of dealing with your continued nonsense.

.

Why yes it has

[Big Guy]

There was a complete defeat of the Iraqi armed forces. The military was asked if they could defeat Saddam's army, They said yes and they did. It was the politicians who never figured it out, they were all about regime change and turning the Middle East into some kind of democratic paradise.

Canada's commitment in Afghanistan wouldn't even register compared to its commitment in the World Wars.

So why not be upfront and just ask whether we want to be an isolationist country, hoping all the bad stuff will just pass us by.

Any source that I have accessed states that ISIS is the remnants of the 10,000 Republican Guard for Saddam which "disappeared" when the USA invaded.

If you feel that there was a complete defeat of Iraqi armed forces then where did the organized, battle prepared, experienced ISIS forces which swept across the Middle East come from?

[Big Guy]

... You really have a very low opinion of the people who serve in our military.

I was taking your comments seriously and enjoying engaging you in differences of opinion - until that cheap shot.

Perhaps I misread your attitude.

[Army Guy]

That's why there needs to be a formal doctrine that the government is bound to. If we want to have a very small inexpensive military then we cant ask them to police the world, fight other peoples civil wars, etc. If we DO want to have an interventionalist foreign policy then we should probably double or triple spending.

We should also directly bill Canadians for the costs and not pay for things like Operation: Abject Failure out of general revenues or the defense budget. Each month we spend involved in a project like Afghanistan an additional tax should be levied against every Canadian to cover the costs, replace equipment, purchase new equipment etc.

I would PERSONALLY prefer a non-interventionalist doctrine such as Sweden's MSD that only allows for direct homeland defense. I don't want to pay for anything beyond that. But I understand that I'm just one person and that other Canadians might feel different.

My point here is and always will be, the first step is to educate the public, on all the topics in the survey, be it by documentary, or another document attached to the survey. Why comment on something with out knowing what it means or the consequences of changing it...... For instance Under our current defensive treaties what is the minimum force Canada must be able to field, what our the consequences if we decide to drop out of NATO...Which has been the main talking points of myself and derek....

I truly see where you are coming from, and I once upon a time I had those same visions. But any document that comes of this is just a piece of paper. and can be changed or canceled at any time, be it by it's creators, or the next elected party. that includes turning the document into law, or adding it to the constitution, although each step requires more effort, they all can be changed...with that in mind nothing is binding...I can remember a White paper being created that had a vast and sweeping changes, talks of nuclear subs, larger air, land and sea forces...it was passed and approved, until the costing , then reality set in, 100 of bils would only scratch the surface...that paper sat as a living document a white paper on defence...it sat and collected dust, it was not amended nor canceled just filed never to be seen again...

Any action taken involving troops are taken out of the defence budget...the first couple of years of Afghanistan DND's budget was in the red, and while most seen this as a simple transferring of funds that is not what happened. Back home all training and activities stopped DND was broke, and the transfer did not happen until the end of the fiscal year.

Same goes for the rescue of Canadians out of Lebanon, all of it out of DND budget, it does not matter that it was a foreign affairs lead mission...it involved troops DND is down to bare cabinets years ago, and does not budget very much for these things.....Taxing the citizens would bring more awareness to the conflict and hold more people accountable, but that is not how our system of spending works...One can not bank funding , once it is budgeted it must be spent within that year or that dept turns it back into government coffers. You've seen our procurement in action it is almost imposable to get a contract in place then have the material delivered by end fiscal year...

I think you mean the swiss, right because

Sweden’s military build-up has seen it abandon all remnants of its historic non-aligned position. As well as its support for military operations in Afghanistan and its sending of Saab Gripen fighter jets to Libya in 2011, this has meant an intensification of international collaboration on issues relating to surveillance and defence.

Although it remains formally outside of NATO, Sweden is to all intents and purposes a full member. It agreed last year to contribute troops to the NATO Response Force (NRF), the alliance’s rapid reaction military unit. The Swedish army participated in NATO’s largest exercise in seven years, “Steadfast Jazz”, in the Baltic last November. The operation, involving up to 6,000 ground troops and directed at Russia, took place in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland for one week.

[Army Guy]

I was taking your comments seriously and enjoying engaging you in differences of opinion - until that cheap shot.

Perhaps I misread your attitude.

When taken into context of his whole post it was not a cheap shot but rather a reasonable question.

But I don't think it stops there I think Big guy has a fear of what a government might do, or be tempted to do if they had a military capable of carrying out it's job. He has a fear that own government can not be trusted.

[Wilber]

I was taking your comments seriously and enjoying engaging you in differences of opinion - until that cheap shot.

Perhaps I misread your attitude.

It isn't a cheap shot at all, you have ascribed behaviour to the military that has no justification, no history or demonstrated inclination.

Some people have a concept of duty that no longer seems fashionable in our society.

[Big Guy]

Methinks that Army Guy and Wilbur have a low opinion of any Canadians who dare to express any criticism of our military.

I trust people who I vote for and am able to replace periodically through a democratic vote.

Who I do NOT trust are people who have a job for life in the military and see the world through that small prism of military life which celebrates macho, toughness, brute force and command structure which discourages questioning and encourages following orders without question. They should have no or at least a minimal role in making decisions on the future of the vast majority of Canadians who choose to not join the military, to take a pragmatic approach to national goals and look to non confrontational approaches to solutions to world problems.

Our military is there to follow the assignment that it is ordered to complete by our government.

Anyone in the military NOT accepting that role should seek other employment.

[Wilber]

Methinks that Army Guy and Wilbur have a low opinion of any Canadians who dare to express any criticism of our military.

Our military is there to follow the assignment that it is ordered to complete by our government.

Anyone in the military NOT accepting that role should seek other employment.

That is what the military has always done, you just make all that other crap up.