Bigger army

[bossi]

I often enjoy Peter Worthington columns - I hope you enjoy this one:

The case for a bigger army
By PETER WORTHINGTON -- Toronto Sun

A recent report in the National Post quoted Maj.-Gen. Lew MacKenzie bewailing the depleted state of the Canadian military and noting that increasingly it is unable to meet combat roles.

He was responding to an observation by Britain‘s top soldier, Gen. Sir Charles Guthrie, who says too many "humanitarian" roles have reduced the British Army‘s capabilities to fight a real war - which is the prime purpose of the military, if the need arises.

Maintaining a strong military is a form of insurance against war, deterring any surprise attack. Military preparedness led to "peace" and an uneasy balance of power when the Soviet Union was waging the Cold War. This is conveniently ignored by a succession of myopic Canadian governments which regard the military as a way to save money by cutting personnel, training and equipment while expanding its roles.

MacKenzie and Guthrie are both right, but nothing is likely to change. The Post quoted retired Gen. MacKenzie - our most experienced peacekeeping soldier - as saying Canada had only about 16,000 effective combat soldiers.

I doubt MacKenzie intended to say this. Perhaps the reporter misheard. With an army of some 20,000 soldiers - nine under-strength infantry battalions and three depleted armoured regiments, plus minimum artillery - it‘s unlikely we have more than 7,000 "fighting" troops. We can‘t even maintain one brigade (5,000 troops) in action.

In World War II, the ratio of actual combat troops to support troops in our army was something like 20:1. The Soviet Red Army was around 12:1, while the Chinese in Korea were 6:1. So the idea that 16,000 (80%) of Canada‘s puny 20,000-member army is "combat effective" is wishful thinking.

Politicians tend to ignore what they don‘t want to hear - like the need for military training in order to be effective. Instead, we cut training to save costs, restrict flying to save fuel, keep ships in drydock to save expenses, limit firing range time to save ammunition costs, risk lives in obsolete helicopters to save buying new ones, barter for cheap equipment instead of buying the best. And so on.

Instead of command exercises and field training, our troops are resting up or preparing for the next UN or NATO mission.

When he was deputy commander for operations in Bosnia, Britain‘s Lt.-Gen. Sir Hew Pike, remarked the Canadian military had "surrendered any claim to be a war-fighting force ... is now really just a peacekeeping force." In order to win wars "you must allow us (the military) to generate a sense of duty, self-sacrifice and selflessness and to discriminate, where necessary, between men and women."

Women combat troops

This was disputed by the government and the Department of National Defence, whose policy was to have women comprise 25% of combat troops. DND denies this is a "quota." Now DND wants women in submarines.

U.S. military historian T.R. Ferrenbach (This Kind of War), has noted that democracies are best at fighting "holy wars" when the nation‘s survival is at stake, but lousy at maintaining a military to pursue national interests. In order to effectively defend the human rights and liberties of the nation, an army must forgo some democratic rights and liberties.

By necessity, the military is disciplined and authoritarian. It requires that members put their lives at risk in the name of duty. The military is not a debating society when it comes to orders - the complaint of a French general during Algeria‘s war for independence.

In NATO‘s recent air war against Yugoslavia, our side was not prepared to accept casualties, with the result that one perceived oppressor was replaced by another oppressor with fewer restraints and less civility. Mostly civilians were victims.

The irony today is that democracies are going to need armies more than they did in the Cold War. The U.S. saved the civilized world from Soviet tyranny between 1950 and 1990, but as the likelihood of World War III recedes into the realm of the inconceivable, countries like Canada need larger, not smaller, armies capable of imposing peace on renegade parts of the world on behalf of the UN.

The zenith of Canada‘s peacekeeping efforts were the years when we had an army that was essentially preparing for World War III. The analogy in those days was that a firehose could be turned down to water the garden, but a garden hose couldn‘t be turned up to put out a fire.

There you have it. Canada has made its army into a garden hose, complete with a recruiting policy designed to limit our capacity to fight a war.
- 30 -

 

[Brad Sallows]

As usual, not everything is correct.

Evidently the phrase "combat effective" has been confused with "combat arms". It may be true that the field force is not currently 100% "combat effective", but not for the reasons implied by Worthington - namely, that combat support and combat service support soldiers are somehow excluded from being "combat effective" (ie. "warfighting effective", if that makes it clearer).

I would suppose that if our "national interests" were to promote peace and stability elsewhere, then the provision of our forces to peacekeeping and peacemaking operations is a wise employment. To paraphrase Sun Tzu, greatness is never recognized because great people eliminate problems while they are small and manageable. (I‘m not suggesting greatness, because several problems got out of hand anyway. Nevertheless, we haven‘t had too many full-blown wars either. We may have achieved something between the extremes.)

If "survival of the nation" is ever at stake, we‘ll have a remarkable advantage if we have socially conditioned ourselves to accept the presence of women everywhere.

I can think of one example in which the firehose self-destructed while being used for a lesser task.

Worthington rambles quite a bit. It was unclear to me how our recruiting policy is designed to limit our ability to fight a war.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I take it another error is the 20 to 1 ratio of combat to non combat troops. That should be the other way around, no?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Yes, the ratio is in the wrong direction. It is probably also too large.

 

[The Reverend]

As per, the Canadian Army is too little. The problem is in the fact that the battalions are "revolving doors". The troops (the army‘s most precious resource) are treated more like children than soldiers. With budget cuts and understrength, poor equipment and poor leadership (at the top levels) it is no wonder that a) no one wants to be a soldier in Canada ; and b) no one wants to stay in once they are there. There is nothing for a Canadian soldier to strive for anymore. Peacekeeping with the UN and NATO are all good, but the fact that the "Battle Schools" (if they can still be called that) are progressively getting weaker and weaker, and troops are afraid to do anything because of all the "SHARP" and "diversity" training doesn‘t help at all. Would Canada ever be in the postion our British brothers where just in? Probably not. We can‘t call it the "Canadian Armed Forces" anymore, just the "Canadian Forces" in case we offend someone. Who wants to be a part of an organization like that? If we solve some of the problems of "getting rid of" instead of fixing, then maybe our forces will be strong again, not just in numbers, but the quality of the numbers. Until then, we will live in our own shadows until the next major conflict arises, and hundreds of Canadian soldiers get slaughtered.

 

[the patriot]

I strongly prefer to call the military by the name it should be called. The "Canadian Armed Forces". Not social workers without the BSW (Bachelor of Social Work) accreditation. I guess this is what happens when the younger generation of soldiers start to take command positions and flood the system with politcally correct zealotry. What will happen next, "No sir, I belay that order because I can‘t run in MK III combat boots. It will ruin my calves and I won‘t be able to shave them for the next mess function."

-the patriot-

 

[Mud Crawler]

I heard there was like 80 000 uniform personnel and 20 000 civilians working for the army but it fell to somethign like 60 000/12 000 after many budget costs over the year.Maybe, perhaps, theres hope now, since the gov is puttin much needed money back in the national def. Does 60 000 uniform personnel means 60 000 combat troops?

 

[Mud Crawler]

I dont have anything against women at all , but women in a sub my be inapropriate.Theres not even enoguh plce for the men themselves, some sleeping on torpedoes(and when the fuk are they gonna buy GOOD stuff instead of buying out of date broken subs to the Brits?), i dont think there any place in a sub for women, unless they are ready to share same toilets and everything as man.If teh case, i dont why there shouldnt be any.

 

[Mud Crawler]

Sorry i should have writen everything at once but here it is.
About Worthingtons column, i dont see how our recruiting policy makes us inable to win wars. Its not 19 push ups, 19 setups under a minute and being able to squeeze 50 pounds with ur hands thats gonna make you nto able to make the army, unless your built like a war camp prisonner and u got only skin on bones, well tahts it

 

[Young KH]

How I suppose that this is going to brown a bunch of the guys off but I for one have no idea why Canada would need a SUB in the first place. High speed missile cutters with sub hunting capacity with some 20mm Vulcan canons and maybe some of the most modern torpedoes / missiles would be more appropriate for what we are called upon to do. Some proper attack and transport helicopters wouldn't hurt either.
But most of all we need more Ground troops (Infantry), foot sloggers, the one with the rifle on his shoulder and mostly the one on the ground that needs to have better equipment to help him do his job. Now we all know that for every soldier on the ground we will also need 10 to 15 support personal, now don't take offence but this includes transport, medics, artillery, mechanics, kitchen help and too many more to even mention. Right now we have somewhere in the neighborhood of 60,000 total Canadian Military, which includes the Air Force and Navy and Army. Ground troops (estimate only) is at a level of 7,000 to 9,000 bodies, showing that even what we have is under supported. But some pressure has been taken off by farming out jobs to the private sector such as Medical, Kitchen and most long haul Transport and now they are talking about admin also.

I feel and this is only my opinion, that Canada needs 20,000 infantry to do the job that it is being asked to do today and even that might be pushing it and the Army support staff needed to be effective, as the demands on our troops does not seem to be decreasing and does not look as if they will any time soon, in fact quite the opposite. The Navy as I said needs high speed multi task smaller ships, not subs and aircraft carriers. Mind you a transport ship or three wouldn't hurt. The Air force needs modern fighters, modern transport planes, modern attack and troop transport choppers just to support and supply the Navy and Ground troops but to protect our coasts and for air and sea rescue, we would also need to beef up the Coast Guard with both equipment and numbers, allowing the Navy and Air force to handle their Military commitments.

The problems as I see them are that we have simply cut the Army back too far, as for the Navy we need to specialize because we are a small (Population wise) nation and do not have the money to play as if we do and the same goes for the Air Force.

Anyway it might not solve everything but it would make life better all around if the troops (Army, Navy and Air Force) could depend on their equipment and because of specialization, they would know exactly what was expected of them and would have enough support to be replaced long enough to train and advance in the chosen Armed Forces careers.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

How I suppose that this is going to brown a bunch of the guys off but I for one have no idea why Canada would need a SUB in the first place.

If you ask that then you have no idea about naval warfare.

High speed missile cutters with sub hunting capacity with some 20mm Vulcan canons and maybe some of the most modern torpedoes / missiles would be more appropriate for what we are called upon to do.

High speed misssile cutters??? You prove my point.

Some proper attack and transport helicopters wouldn't hurt either.
But most of all we need more Ground troops (Infantry), foot sloggers, the one with the rifle on his shoulder and mostly the one on the ground that needs to have better equipment to help him do his job.

Can't say I disagree with you there

I feel and this is only my opinion, that Canada needs 20,000 infantry to do the job that it is being asked to do today and even that might be pushing it and the Army support staff needed to be effective, as the demands on our troops does not seem to be decreasing and does not look as if they will any time soon, in fact quite the opposite. The Navy as I said needs high speed multi task smaller ships, not subs and aircraft carriers
Mind you a transport ship or three wouldn't hurt.

Smaller ships don't fair well in the North Atlantic or North Pacific and if you get rid of subs then yor troop ships have no protection.

The Air force needs modern fighters, modern transport planes, modern attack and troop transport choppers just to support and supply the Navy and Ground troops but to protect our coasts and for air and sea rescue, we would also need to beef up the Coast Guard with both equipment and numbers, allowing the Navy and Air force to handle their Military commitments.

Having a submarine force plus capable escorts is what enables the navy to handle their military commitments not removing capabilites.

The problems as I see them are that we have simply cut the Army back too far, as for the Navy we need to specialize because we are a small (Population wise) nation and do not have the money to play as if we do and the same goes for the Air Force.

Your view is very linear and you don't see the big picture. Joint Ops is the big thing these days and if you remove the AIr Force and Naval capabilites we won't be able to get the foot soldier on the ground. Look at the Navy and AIr Force forums.

Anyway it might not solve everything but it would make life better all around if the troops (Army, Navy and Air Force) could depend on their equipment and because of specialization, they would know exactly what was expected of them and would have enough support to be replaced long enough to train and advance in the chosen Armed Forces careers.

How is having less eqipment and having nche roles going to make the CF better, if anything you remove the combat effectiveness.

[/quote]

 

[Young KH]

I didn't say that it would make us a better Armed Forces and I did say that it would brown a lot of people off, but we are not and never will be a world power, so should stop thinking like we are. But it will make us a more efficient force in what we have been doing sense the 60's. All of the Armed Forces are undermaned and under equipped because we are a small Nation trying to do it all of the jobs ourselves. We can't afford to buy the biggest and best Subs and the larger ships of the line and buying old run down pieces of junk is not spending our money wisely, but we have in the past proved that we not only are efficient at running escort and sub hunting but even building our own Ships here in Canada.

If we are going to be an intergrated force within NATO then we have to stop duplicating jobs. It's great for the war industry but useless for an Army like that of Canada. We are good at Peace keeping / making and should continue to do that well. We have been known World wide as a more or less a Neutral Country and I HOPE that it remains that way. But lets be serious here no one is going to ask Canada's' Sub force to escort them, not even Canada, and if they did The sub force couldn't do the job anyway. Subs have to be able to work under water to do the job that you suggested.

Cutter, cruiser whatever, I don't know the name or class of ships, SO What. That still doesn't change the reasoning behind what I said. Canada has to specialize because we are too small to do it all and if we specialize we can also trade services for what we require.

If more people would read the meaning behind the postings instead of "Picking Fly Poop out of Pepper" more people might post.

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

when I was the army back in the early  90s working at the Army HQ in Toronto,  some numbers were being passed around  comparing the Canadian Army  to NEW YORK CITY  PD , there were more cops in the city  then was ground soldiers in the Canadian Forces. The number of men it took to put one man in the field was like 7 to 1.

Grunts or men walking with the C7 and holding ground, the only  force capable of holding piece of ground we are very  short of. More then likely we are too short . Enlarging the army, means we should be upsizing the Line regiments, RCR, Vandoos, PPCLI, ( do not meant to cut anyone off) but those are the units that  need a serious number increase, need full size company  numbers,  need full sized Bat.  We cannot and will never field a Division again. But we cannot afford to fake it on paper.

If we supersize the units what  need the man power, we will be able to do the jobs  that  we send the troops on.  When those Line Units are full size the rest of the army  should fall into place and support them.  That is the basics,  we have to get everything required to support the men on the line. 

I will admit I am a former paper pusher,  cut back on my  paper clips, and amount of paper I require, to save money  if it means more troops on the ground. Cut back on a few generals, colonels and some other coffe drinking, donut stuffing faces , chair warming sobs and get back to soldiering.
I know a few Colonels who would take a demotion if it meant they  got to get back to be in the field with the men and being a soldier not a desk jockey.

We need the equipment, we need the men who can use the equipment, do not need more office chairs to be filled

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Again I would say you know very little about naval warfare so I will give you a quick lesson. Its 3 dimensional:
1) Above
2) On
3) Below
You remove one of those aspects and you lose any effectiveness of a Navy. We lose the subs (BTW if you read about the Collins the Aussies got it was crap initially as well...the CPFs were full of problems initially but have proven their worth time and time again) and we lose a a valuable surveillance asset (being from a Recce Platoon you should realize the capability of a sub), the threat of a sub in an area increases every sailors pucker factor. The list of missions and capabilities have been already stated time and time again so I won't repeat them again.

If people don't pretend to understand what they do not and try to pass off they do then we would not have this problem.

 

[Young KH]

FormerHorseGuard
Exactly and I can find no wrong in your reasoning, but remember that the last time Canada deployed a large number of troops that we had to beg for transport to get there. This is unacceptable As for me (except for speed) it doesn't matter if we have troop/transport ships or troop/transport planes or even both, but we have been doing the (well almost) same job for 40 years or better, so we should know exactly what is needed to do it.

 

[Young KH]

Just a question, When was the last time that a Canadian Sub was used in war?

 

[Young KH]

Just a question, When was the last time that a Canadian Sub was used in war?

Better yet is when was the last time a Canadian Sub was in fact fit for war?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I could say when was the last time Canada used the TOW missile?

Have you ever read anything on naval warfare? I guess not because if you did you would see that the sub threat world wide is not diminishing its increasing. The best thing to kill a sub (I know the Air Types would argue this ) is another sub. I freely admit that the Victorias were not the best idea and a U212 prob would have been a better idea.

 

[Young KH]

All I meant about the subs was that Canada would have been better off buying one NEW Nuclear Sub then three old used and lets be honest here pieces of junk from Britain.
As for Navy warfair, I admit that I don't know a thing and don't pretend to, but I do know about spreading yourselves too thin and that is what Canada does, all the time.

As for Re con, just try and see how close you are going to get to the US or British coast line before detection.

But even you must admit that all forces need to be increased, and I would hope that even the navy has priorities of where large expenditures would go. Problems lies in the problem that most generals want the biggest toy in the sand box (pool), but that isn't what is needed today. What is needed in 10 years from now may change, but we are at this time Peace keepers and so that is where the money should be spent. To do a half job now because we want equipment that might come in handy in some future time is wastfull and also not fair to the troops in harms way, right now.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

All I meant about the subs was that Canada would have been better off buying one NEW Nuclear Sub then three old used and lets be honest here pieces of junk from Britain.

4 actually. The problem was having an SSN would be that...it would only be one and it cannot be everywhere at once.

As for Navy warfair, I admit that I don't know a thing and don't pretend to, but I do know about spreading yourselves too thin and that is what Canada does, all the time.

We always have but getting rid of a capability for a big big area of naval warfare won't solve a thing either.

As for Re con, just try and see how close you are going to get to the US or British coast line before detection.

Been on a few exercises in my time so I know it can be done. See thats the beauty of having a sub you know its out there, you deploy to look for it and you will hopefully pick it up. Inshore ops is a big thing for submariners these days, the new Virginia class SSNs that are being launched now are even more capable of missions closer to the shore line. SSKs are even more critical these days to prevent Virginia's and their eventual bad guy clones from doing so.

But even you must admit that all forces need to be increased, and I would hope that even the navy has priorities of where large expenditures would go. Problems lies in the problem that most generals want the biggest toy in the sand box (pool), but that isn't what is needed today. What is needed in 10 years from now may change, but we are at this time Peace keepers and so that is where the money should be spent. To do a half job now because we want equipment that might come in handy in some future time is wastfull and also not fair to the troops in harms way, right now.

I agree but warfare is building blocks, without experience in using those tools you do have how will you be able to do your job in the future when you may really need it. Cutting back and ditching equipment is not the answer.  You cannot actually say getting rid of the Leopards was a great idea or the M109s? Those decisions will come back and haunt the CF.