Defence Policy in the 2006 General Election

[NL_engineer]

Take a look at the Conservative Defence policy, looks good on paper; but I bet it will be say good bye too the C7 A2, all other new kit, along with a pay reduction.

Just my 2 cents

 

[George Wallace]

I'd like to know how you figure in a Pay 'Reduction'.

 

[DG-41]

Does the Brigade in Valcartier not count for anything; how will sticking one in Bagotville help?!?

It's already at the airport that way.

I'm just not sure where it would train.....

DG

 

[Kirkhill]

At least it answer's Duey's question about what the intentions for Quebec are.

There is some sort of symmetry working here - one battalion per existing brigade, moved to airheads and the airborne capability at the Trenton Airhead?  Comox, Bagotville, Goose Bay and Trenton?  Not an entirely novel idea to Infanteer and others on this board, who, if I recall correctly, have considered something of the same in the past.  

Perhaps the intention is to move the LIBs out to these bases.  Perhaps the intention is to form new battalions.  Perhaps the CSOR will be the airborne battalion.  Perhaps it will be in addition.  Perhaps the extra PYs will come from the 75,000 regular strength that the CPC called for in their policy statement produced at their party convention.... Perhaps.....

I guess we will have to wait and see a little longer. ???

 

[Infanteer]

Well, with all these "rapid reaction brigades", the CPC would have to import then entire 75th Ranger Regiment to meet the numbers.

 

[Kirkhill]

battalions 

 

[Infanteer]

opps-haha; My mistake.

 

[Monsoon]

So there are 3250 troops right there! Add in the 100 reg force pers in each major city... figure another 600 troops there... Will they disperse the brigades to do this?

No, they'll just take in the 5,000 additional soldiers that the Liberals have already gotten the wheels turning to recruit, but they'll spread them all the f*ck over the country so that they can't train together in any meaningful way.

When was it decided that the reserve units are too brain-damaged to act in the event of an emergency?  Or that 100 guys cooling their heels waiting for something to happen is an effective use of manpower?  This is exactly the sort of "man the garrison" mentality that modern militaries are moving away from, and the Canada Command structure being put in place is specifically designed to address.  In fact, CANCOM is designed around the principle of not using the locally-stationed CF members for emergency response - they're expected to be too busy looking after their own families (à la the New Orleans Police Department).  As long as the forces stationed at the central bases are ready to move quickly, it doesn't matter where they are located.

Politicians make policy and defence planners figure out how to implement it: "we want a battalion here, here and here" isn't policy, it's pork-barrelling.

 

[NL_engineer]

The policy I seen from a friend working on a Conservatives campain, was basically; Expand the forces, Up the Op tempo (Iraq months after election), and cut costs (we are one of the highest paid armies in the world, so I speculate the Conservatives will be like Gorge Bush and cut pay to the forces by 10+%). :

 

[Kirkhill]

Or perhaps employ a higher proportion of private/corporals?

 

[canuck101]

Employ for shorter periods of service so very low benefits or none at all.

 

[Gunner]

The policy I seen from a friend working on a Conservatives campain, was basically; Expand the forces, Up the Op tempo (Iraq months after election), and cut costs (we are one of the highest paid armies in the world, so I speculate the Conservatives will be like Gorge Bush and cut pay to the forces by 10+%). :

I repectfully submit that your comments are a very poor rumour (or fearmongering if that is your wish) and "your friend" working on the Conservative campaign is blowing smoke out of his/her ***.  It would be political suicide for the Conservatives (in a minority or weak majority situation) to contemplate deploying Canadian soldiers into Iraq and the opposition parties would force a minority government to fall quickly.  Secondly, if the second line of operation is committed the army will be under severe pressure trying to maintain these two commitments in addition to expanding the army.  Thirdly, cutting costs would be a huge morale destroyer without any budget "deficit" dragon to blame it on.  Again political suicide and highly unlikely considering the pro military stance of the CPC.  Mind you, the Conservatives will have to pay for all of the pork barrel politics providing a "battalion" for every urban setting including infrastructure for the units...

Sorry, don't buy it at all.

 

[George Wallace]

............and cut costs (we are one of the highest paid armies in the world, so I speculate the Conservatives will be like Gorge Bush and cut pay to the forces by 10+%). :

Surely you jest?

Do you realize what you have just said?  How would this pay cut take effect?  Lay off 10% of all those new Recruits that the CPC are planning on getting?  Or a 10% pay cut straight across the board for everyone in the CF?  No doubt you realize that the CF Pay is linked into the Public Civil Service Pay Scales and to effect a pay cut to the members of the CF would also apply to the Public Civil Service.  This statement of yours is crap.  It would be suicide for the CPC to even contemplate 'punishing' the members of the CF and Public Civil Service in this way.

This definitely shows a lack of knowledge on your part as to what the situation truly is.

 

[scm77]

(we are one of the highest paid armies in the world, so I speculate the Conservatives will be like Gorge Bush and cut pay to the forces by 10+%). :

Since Gunner already debunked the first part of your post, can you support this at all?  Because I looked and all I could find was info saying US Military pay has increased every year since 2002 (atleast).

2004-2006 ->Pay increases every year
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/fy2005paycharts/a/paycharts.htm

2003 ->Minimum 4.1% Increase
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/militarypay/l/aa03pay1.htm

2002->6.9% Average Increase
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0101/010702afps.htm

Perhaps it happened in 2001 or 2000 (though I can't find anything stating that).  So please back up your information for us.

 

[Michael OLeary]

The policy I seen from a friend working on a Conservatives campain, was basically; Expand the forces, Up the Op tempo (Iraq months after election), and cut costs (we are one of the highest paid armies in the world, so I speculate the Conservatives will be like Gorge Bush and cut pay to the forces by 10+%). :

Since our pay scales and our future cost of living increases are now tied to the civil service wage structure, will they all get a pay cut too?

 

[McG]

George, you may be right as the Conservatives announcement is short on explanation as to what these soldiers (Reg or Res) will be doing in the major centres. 

My first impression of this was that he is offering 10/90 battalions in every major city.

With the Conservatives funding backing up Mr. Hilliers plans we would be unstoppable...

My concern is that Mr O'Connor has indicated that the party would not support all of the initiatives started under the CDS, but which of Gen Hillier's plans would they stop/undo?

So what is the running total now?

Comox - 650
Trenton - 650
Bagotville - 650
Iqaliut - 500

Hopefully the CSOR wouldn't be stopped if the 'Conservatives' win - 800

So there are 3250 troops right there! Add in the 100 reg force pers in each major city... figure another 600 troops there... Will they disperse the brigades to do this?

Plus an additional 500 pers to MARPAC.  I would like to know if the plan for these three new battalions is to integrate them into the existing brigades (in which case why not put them into the existing super-bases) or to have them report to another chain of command (in which case, why not combine them into PM Martin's new brigade promised from the previous election).

 

[Kirkhill]

My sense is that the CPC has proposed an increase in force strength to take reg numbers from 60,000 currently, past the 65,000 currently planned, to 75,000 or just a bit shy of Senator Kenny's committee's recommendation.  Timeline and budget is not clear - to say the least.

As for the reason for dispersing troops to Comox, Goose Bay and Jonquiere - simple - Presence.  It serves the Forces to be seen.  It serves the Government to be seen.  After all that ultimately was the reason for the sponsorship programme.  People need to see that their government does things.  One of the things it should be seen doing is supplying defence.  Even if there might be savings associated with concentration in super-bases the "inefficiencies" in this case might be justified.  It would also give more locations in which people could choose to serve - maybe not every Newfoundlander wants to serve in Edmonton nor every BC type serve in Pet or Valcartier.

Presence.  The government, and the forces, need to be seen.  When people see them, and see them doing things they expect them to be doing (whatever those might be) then they are more likely to start considering becoming part of that 65, 75 or 80,000.

 

[McG]

Are they still planning a Goose Bay battalion?

 

[Kirkhill]

Damfino for sure but I think I recall reading recently that the Goose Bay battalion was still on.

I wonder if this might not be the picture being drawn:

CanadaCom

Front Line - Civil Institutions (RCMP and other agencies, federal, provincial, municipal) - NOT UNDER COMMAND - Lead agencies in urban areas

First Support Line - 10/90 or 30/70 battalions for local support of civil authorities - ACP and Disaster Relief

Second Support Line - Regional Battalions - Comox, Jonquiere, Goose Bay? - ACP and Disaster Relief in support of Civil Authority in urban areas - possible lead in remote areas south of 60 and Ungava

Third Support Line - Airborne Battalion and DART - Trenton - focused on North of 60 and Arctic Archipelago - possibly working with troop carrying ice-breakers as well?

CanSOFCom

JTF2

CSOR

CanExCom?

6-9 Task Forces found from existing 3 Brigade Groups?

Rotate troops?  Rotate Units?  Manning? All sorts of questions, agreed, and it would be nice to know what the details look like but I don't think we can assume that this would necessarily be all bad.

And I admit a bias that is cutting the CPC a lot of slack.  On the other hand I was also willing to give the Liberals credit, in particular David Pratt and Bill Graham for stepping up to the plate and supporting Gen'l Hillier.

Cheers

 

[Gunner]

Presence.  The government, and the forces, need to be seen.  When people see them, and see them doing things they expect them to be doing (whatever those might be) then they are more likely to start considering becoming part of that 65, 75 or 80,000.

Kirkhill,  I work in one of the most military friendly cities and provinces in Canada and the CF/Army has sunk hundred's of millions of dollars into the economy over the last 10 years.  I still meet people asking me about how the "air base" is doing.  I don't buy the presence argument at all.  If you want Canadians to "see the federal government doing something" they would plug large units in the centre of major centres and they can stage a weekly freedom of the city.  It's pure pork barreling and it will be a waste of much needed funding for higher priority areas in the CF. Stationing units in remote areas will be a serious morale issue for these soldiers (look at the whining that went on when they moved 2 PPCLI to Shilo).