- Reaction score
- 5,963
- Points
- 1,260
I found this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post, interesting, even though I disagree with some of the author's points:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/06/matt-gurney-canadas-ignorant-about-the-military-despite-huge-budget-requirements/
Suggesting that Canadians' deeply entrenched ignorance of and apathy about military matters is a "danger to democracy" is going a bit overboard; ditto suggesting that in "educating" politicians and senior bureaucrats military officers skew the agenda. But, there is little doubt that politicians and bureaucrats have little appetite for the technical details of modern military matters ~ nor should they, not any more than, say, the Minister of Natural Resources needs to understand the technical complexity of disposing of the waste from pulp and paper plants: it's a problem; we have experts; they recommend a range of options; ministers select the one that can a) be afforded and b) get the job done just well enough.
I do agree with Prof. Bland that we need to strengthen the military's ties to the community ~ restoring the old UNTD and COTC programmes, and helping reserve force members (officers and other ranks) to pay of loans at a higher rate if they stay in reserve units after graduation might be a way to help. Both would require more resources including more paid Class A billets in reserve units.
I have often said, and I firmly believe that Canadians' "support" for the troops is a mile wide but only an inch deep; that is, in large part, a consequence of the ignorance that Profs Sarty and Bland bemoan.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/06/matt-gurney-canadas-ignorant-about-the-military-despite-huge-budget-requirements/
Canada’s ignorant about the military despite huge budget requirements
Matt Gurney
Apr 6, 2012
“When I was a historian for the navy,” laughs Roger Sarty, ‘‘when I’d tell people what I did, most of them didn’t realize Canada had a navy.”
Roger Sarty
Wilfred Laurier University
Mr. Sarty, a military history professor at Wilfrid Laurier University, laughs again. “These were smart people. Knowledgeable of current events and the government. But the military never crossed their minds.”
Mr. Sarty is saying what every soldier, sailor and airman knows: Canadians support their military, but they aren’t particularly interested in it.
The public, the media and even our elected officials are genuinely perplexed about all matters military — and it shows. Tuesday’s Auditor-General’s report on the F-35 fighter jet concluded that Department of National Defence officials were determined to see that plane selected as the replacement for the Royal Canadian Air Force’s CF-18 fleet. To that end, they failed to follow standard procedure for acquisitions, deliberately understated costs and did not keep Parliament informed about development problems. The report also validates Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page’s conclusion that each F-35 will cost roughly double what the Conservatives had budgeted for.
Yet the public doesn’t seem particularly troubled. Concerns about the program certainly didn’t stop Canadians from giving Stephen Harper’s Conservatives a strong majority last May, even though the program’s troubles were public knowledge. It’s not that the opposition didn’t try to get the public to care. It just didn’t take.
Put simply, it’s hard to get us riled up on matters military.
“Canada’s military history has traditionally been one of a tiny regular force backed up by a somewhat less tiny reserve force,” says Mr. Sarty, on this day teaching a lecture at the Canadian Forces College, speaking to mid-level officers from Canada and a variety of allied nations.
“The world wars, which saw Canada send a tenth of its population off to war, are the exceptions. The military was typically small and out of the way. The Canadian public didn’t tune in to the military [until] the Oka crisis and the Persian Gulf War, when they realized that maybe the post-Cold War word was still dangerous. That interest climaxed when we took heavy casualties in Afghanistan. Canadians realized, when they stopped to think about it, that they supported the troops.”
There are very real political consequences to this.
“The military largely runs itself,” said Robert Roy, senior producer at the Toronto-based Breakout Educational Network, a charitable organization that produces documentaries and TV programs on military, environmental and governance issues. “There’s almost no one in Parliament with a real understanding of the armed forces, and the public never asks about it. They should — Defence is the largest discretionary item in the budget — but they don’t.
“That means the military can bamboozle the politicians,” Mr. Roy continued. “They walk in and say, ‘We need this piece of equipment or else soldier’s lives will be at stake.’ The politicians are ignorant of military reality, so don’t feel comfortable saying no.”
That’s a problem, and a hard one to solve. While we have military history, Canada has little military tradition.
Combined with our comfortable geopolitical position (Canada is indeed “a fireproof house, far from inflammable materials,” as Quebec Senator Raoul Dandurand said in 1924), this means Canada largely lacks defence-focused intellectual infrastructure, such as think-tanks. Canadian defence experts are (or were) generally directly involved with the Forces. It’s different in the United States, where a million-man volunteer army guarantees that everyone knows someone who’s served — friend, relative, spouse, neighbour. And Canada doesn’t have the same strategic situation as, say, Australia, which is far from its friends and knows that in a war, even if helps comes, it will take weeks — at best — to get there. Canadians don’t take defence seriously because, historically, they haven’t had to.
This makes effective oversight of Defence difficult. It’s one thing to insist upon the bureaucratic formalities of oversight (and in the case of the F-35, the Auditor-General found even those weren’t always observed). It’s quite another to have a true public discussion when the knowledge base for such a dialogue simply doesn’t exist.
“It makes it impossible to have a conversation about our military needs,” Mr. Roy said. “Canadians have accepted the language of a peacekeeping, defensive military, and sometimes understand that war is necessary. But when you try to explain to them why the navy needs new helicopters, they can’t follow.”
And lack of interest directly impacts on procurement, according to Douglas Bland, a fellow (and former chair) of the Defence Studies Program at Queen’s University.
Douglas Bland
Queens University
The Air Force wants cutting-edge F-35s. Federal governments, Liberal and Conservative, wanted the program’s economic benefits and to be seen responding favourably to the military’s requests. And the public service, including those at Public Works and Government Services tasked with staying on top of the F-35’s procurement, “watch for clues and signals” as to what the Prime Minister’s Office wants them to do. “The Public Service don’t say, ‘No, Minister,’ as often as they should. The key to getting promoted is getting the PMO what it wants, not telling it why they can’t have it. So they say, ‘Yes, Minister,’ ” says Mr. Bland. Few in broader society know enough to have an opinion.
Enforcement and oversight, therefore, has to come from within Defence — and that’s hard. “A lot of promising political careers come to an end at Defence,” Mr. Bland said. “It’s a difficult, complicated department, with fingers in a lot of other ministry’s pies. The Minister of Defence has to deal with foreign affairs, procurement, Treasury, regional pressure for contracts and bases and also be responsible for 65,000 troops. It’s very easy to make a mistake … or at least give the opposition a chance to convince the public that you did.”
And the minister must also prioritize public outreach, trying to bridge the gap between the military and the public. “Peter MacKay has done a good job bolstering the profile of the Canadian Forces in the community, and has clearly enjoyed doing it,” Mr. Bland added. “But the job needs a vigorous administrator at the top.”
In that, Mr. Sarty agrees with Mr. Bland. “The military is always desperate to educate a new minister or crop of civil servants. They have learned from experience that most incoming ministers or officials know nothing about the military. A lot of time is spent teaching them the basics just so that they can do their jobs.”
Mr. Sarty doesn’t believe that senior officers intentionally exploit a new minister’s ignorance, but in teaching them about the military, they obviously push their own agendas. “It would be political interference for a Canadian officer to directly try to influence Parliament, but they speak through the Ministers, who have no choice but to listen.”
This isn’t healthy for Canadian democracy. Building bridges between the military and the public should therefore be a real priority for all. With the combat missions in Afghanistan and Libya concluded, the military will drop off the media’s radar, except to report on procurement debacles such as the F-35. The Breakout Educational Network has been working for years to re-establish a military training presence on Canadian university campuses, something that hasn’t existed since 1968.
“The military had clubs on Canadian campuses for years,” recalls Inta Erwin, president of Breakout. “Students were exposed to military life. They weren’t obligated to serve after their degree was finished, but even if they didn’t, they at least knew what the military was about.”
The closing of this program, combined with the military moving its bases off valuable urban real estate in cities like Winnipeg and London, Ont., in favour of remote areas like Shilo, Man., and Petawawa, Ont., cut off whole generations of Canadians from their armed forces.
Restoring an Officer Training Corps on Canadian campuses would help reverse that. The University of Alberta has agreed to host a trial program, and other schools are interested. The Forces have likewise shown interest, but have not yet committed. They should. As Ms. Erwin points out, it would give the military presence in some of the most dynamic and diverse parts of Canadian society. And the schools are eager to take part, she says. “They graduate enough arts majors. They want to be seen as making the leaders of tomorrow. No one teaches leadership better than the Forces.”
Exposing Canadians to the military, in a positive way, could only lead to a more informed public. But as worthy as the idea is, re-establishing Officer Training Corps would only take us so far. Perhaps as far as we can go.
“A professional military is a very unique, very technical thing. Short of another major global war requiring general mobilization, nothing will really teach the public about the military,” concluded Mr. Bland. “And no one expects that.”
He’s probably right, and therein lies the fundamental irony of Canadian defence issues. Canada’s blessings are the military’s curse.
National Post
Suggesting that Canadians' deeply entrenched ignorance of and apathy about military matters is a "danger to democracy" is going a bit overboard; ditto suggesting that in "educating" politicians and senior bureaucrats military officers skew the agenda. But, there is little doubt that politicians and bureaucrats have little appetite for the technical details of modern military matters ~ nor should they, not any more than, say, the Minister of Natural Resources needs to understand the technical complexity of disposing of the waste from pulp and paper plants: it's a problem; we have experts; they recommend a range of options; ministers select the one that can a) be afforded and b) get the job done just well enough.
I do agree with Prof. Bland that we need to strengthen the military's ties to the community ~ restoring the old UNTD and COTC programmes, and helping reserve force members (officers and other ranks) to pay of loans at a higher rate if they stay in reserve units after graduation might be a way to help. Both would require more resources including more paid Class A billets in reserve units.
I have often said, and I firmly believe that Canadians' "support" for the troops is a mile wide but only an inch deep; that is, in large part, a consequence of the ignorance that Profs Sarty and Bland bemoan.