Believe me, I have absolutely no love for Trudeau and his defence policy, but there is plenty of blame to go around on this fiasco we find ourselves in now.
Since 1990 (the end of the Cold War and the last time our Defence spending was at 2% of GDP) we've had both Liberal and Conservative governments (12 years under the Conservatives and 20 years under the Liberals) which have all had a part to play in contributing to this mess (and the 1982-1990 ~2% spending was preceded by sub 2% spending from 1973 to 1981).
A big chunk of the blame should also go to the Military leadership over all this time. To be honest it's shameful that with an Army the size of ours and an annual Defence budget of the $22 Billion range annually that we're scrambling to be able to piece together the ability to lead a Brigade-sized deployment. And that's just to LEAD a Brigade...not deploy an entire Brigade on our own. And what would our situation be if we actually had to fight that Brigade?
I would have loved to witnessed the conversation between the Minister and CDS when NATO called on us to meet our commitment.
Minister: "So General, NATO needs us to step up and take on leadership of a Brigade in Latvia. We have three Reg Force Brigades and nine Reserve Brigades in the Army. How do you propose we make this happen?"
CDS: "Ummm...."
It occurs to me that Wayne Eyre has had his Sam Hughes "Come to Jesus moment". The realization that his military establishment is not fit for purpose, that parochial interests can't be managed and the need is urgent. And he has nothing.
Time to chuck the Regiments and create a wholly new structure, call it a Canadian Expeditionary Force, recruit from the existing bodies and create numbered Battalions, Batteries and Squadrons.
He has been encouraged in this line of thinking by a Minister who has realized that despite the sixth largest budget in NATO the cupboard is bare. The best we can do is contribute Swedish anti-tank rifles, a handful of Anglo-American M777s, and some funding.
I could read the Memo as calling for getting rid of all the carbuncles that have stuck to the peace-time structure and decided that if there are limitations on the number of people in uniform then there is no room for uniformed civil servants. Any desk job can be contracted out to the Civil Service or the private sector. Maintenance of tanks and LAVs can follow the route of the ships, planes and helicopters and be contracted out to the private sector. Just the way the rest of NATO does it - some countries are more successful at it than others and the successful ones should be emulated. Every logistics supply chain starts in the private sector in any case.
Anand's non-response to every question was 25 BCAD, 6th largest budget in NATO. Rising to 40 BCAD in time for Force 2025.
For the 6th largest budget do we get the 6th most effective force?
As to why the ACSVs rather than the LAV 6.0s?
If that was a Ukrainian ask, perhaps it suggests that the Ukrainians, who generally ride on top of their vehicles when in contact, don't see much value in a vehicle designed to carry troops that wastes interior space to carry a turret armed with a gun that is too big to kill people and too small to kill tanks. Take a look at the Slovakian/NATO statement of requirement for an IFV - they wanted a 7.62 coax with lots of ammunition to kill people and gun larger than 30mm, also with lots of ammo, to kill vehicles. And judging from some of the BTR4 videos out of Ukraine they also expect the turret to be quick on the draw. Oh, and the Slovak IFVs also had to have a mounted ATGM system.
If that was a Canadian offer, perhaps it suggests that the Canadians are really tied to their LAVs and mounted warfare and wanted to keep their LAVs at all costs.
The ACSVs, without all the Gee-Whiz kit cluttering up the interior, would make a great armoured bus for rapidly moving light infantry with all their weapons, including MANPADs, ATGMs and Coy Mortars, to the front along broken roads under shell fire.
