Does Canada need a Military?

[Neill McKay]

I don't even think Britain or France would allow that to happen. I'd much rather we be taken completely back under British rule than American. And technically since we're still part of the Commonwealth, they have to defend us!

I don't believe that membership in the Commonwealth implies any requirement to defend other members.

 

[Franko]

New Zealand's army is 1000 or so strong, they couldn't defend their land against a swarm of lemurs. 

You try telling that to their faces and see how long you're still standing....    :

And to me, a small military is starting to become slightly irrelevant.  I think a portion of Canadians feel pride in knowing they have an army and to that degree I'd say it's a good thing to have around.  It really is the only argument I can see as to why we MUST have a military.  Because the world would not notice if we scrapped our CF.  I'm sure the US does not care, just as long as we have missile stocked satellites orbiting over our hemisphere.

Your ignorance is absolutly astounding. Ever hear of NATO and our commitments there? Obviously not.

We sold Alaska ........

Wrong again....Russia sold Alaska to the US in the late 1800s    :

So between the lack of threat and money and the presence of a big neighbor- Canada's military does seem a bit superfluous.

Really then....so I take it that you weren't craping your pants during 911.

I and many people here on this site are getting tired of your retoric fast.

Keep it up.

Regards

 

[Eland]

Understandable, but at the same time, in order to defend a land mass the size of Canada against the US, we'd need an army bigger than China's. If the US wanted to annex Canada, no matter what kind of military force we had, we really wouldn't stand much of a chance - they have ten times our population, a far stronger and more diversified economy and a military system that's technologically superior to ours is almost every way. In addition to this, a great deal of our defence materials and equipment come from the US, so we would be reduced to fighting a guerrila war, which I don't know how long we would be able to sustain if the US controlled all shipping traffic in and out of North America. And as much as the rest of the world generally likes Canada, I don't know if any of them are friendly enough to go to war with the US for us. If the US was really bent on taking over Canada, there's pretty much nothing that we could do to stop them. Or even slow them down, really.

And since we have the US (the most economically and militarily powerful country in the world) as our neighbour, nobody's going to try to attack or invade us. Personally, I think that we should maintain enough of a force to keep our overseas commitments (which would imply either stepping up our military capacity, or cutting back on our overseas commitments - for the moment, the government seems to be taking the first road), while having enough back in Canada to respond to natural disasters, riots, etc. I would suggest that regular force be used for overseas deployments, due to the fact that they're much better prepared for such tasks (simply because they can train all day every day) than reserves, and reserves be trained and used during national emergencies where civilian agencies do not have the capacity to respond adequately.

There's little doubt we couldn't even begin to field an army the size of China's. However, Canada is wealthy enough to be able to do far, far more than it is doing in the military sphere. Retired general Lewis McKenzie was once quoted as saying that Canada should have a military of about 180,000, army, navy and air force included. A force that large would allow for fairly sizable army - perhaps as large as the 100,000 -strong force we saw before the Liberals started their social engineering regime which almost destroyed it.

The fact that we have a large land mass is not a reason for us not to make a reasonable attempt to defend it. Our presently tiny military is not what I would call 'a reasonable effort'. Simply saying "Let the Americans defend us" is a cop-out of the worst kind, and is one of the reasons why Canada currently enjoys little real credibility in the world today. In fact, we are a G8 country not because of our contribution to the collective defence burden, or even in the humanitarian arena, but because of our rich natural resources. I sometimes think that Canada is essentially a US protectorate, and that the rest of the world, the US included, humours us by letting us pretend to be sovereign - as long as we dish out the natural resources. We've also been guilty of resting too long on the laurels we earned in WWII and Korea.

Yes, the Americans could invade, and there's little Canada could do about it. If Canadians were suitably disposed in such an event, they could embroil the Americans in a guerrilla war and make their lives difficult. After all, the US Army has had a long history of prosecuting,  losing, and generally having great difficulty in wars where the opponent was basically a guerrilla army.

But there's little guarantee that this would happen. More to the point, Canadians are so regional in outlook and so spread out, that it's hard to see how any resistance movement could maintain much momentum for long. That's notwithstanding your point about the US possibly choking off our seaports. I'm simply pointing out that Canada's historical, cultural and political make-up would militate against much of a response to a US invasion.

 

[exsemjingo]

Golly, is this B.S. Thread Still up?

Here's a better question:  Do we still need to breath? 
The existence of the military is not a matter of political opinion.  If you think that, say, the Americans are a potential enemy despite our being in NATO and NORAD, then we definitely need a military to defend ourselves.  In this case it would have to be far larger than it is now.  If, on the other hand, you pay attention to rudimentary politics and know that the Americans are the best ally anyone could ever have, then we should have a military significantly larger than it is now in order to contribute our fair share to said treaties.
If you are of the opinion that we need to Invade the U.S. and trade with China and Russia, then we need a significantly larger military...

See what I am driving at?
The only nations ever to ask this question, and what's more say no like our previous Liberal government did, are ones in a position more secure than they deserve, or about to loose the position they thought they had.  A strong military equals national sovereignty.  The absence of one equals international subjugation. 

 

[a_majoor]

Yes, the Americans could invade, and there's little Canada could do about it. If Canadians were suitably disposed in such an event, they could embroil the Americans in a guerrilla war and make their lives difficult. After all, the US Army has had a long history of prosecuting,  losing, and generally having great difficulty in wars where the opponent was basically a guerrilla army.

As a historical BTW, the American Army, Navy and Marines have long and deep historical roots in fighting and winning guerrilla wars, starting with the Colonial period, the American Revolution (AS the guerrilla army, who says they are not adaptable?), the "Indian Wars", fighting the Barberry Pirates, occupying the Philippines, operations in China, the "Banana Wars"....The Continental Army, large American Armies of the Civil War and WW I were abberations and demobilized as soon as possible after the wars were done.

The problem was the huge American Army (and armed forces) of WW II were not fully demobilized, but underwent a new expansion, due to the threat from the USSR. As a large standing army preparing for Armageddon in the Fulda Gap, they had little institutional attention for the other aspects of conflict (and their leadership was initially drawn form the ranks of WW II Generals who learned their trade with Divisions and Corps fighting formed enemy formations.)

The proponents of the "small army" reorganized and became known as the Special Forces and Special Operations Forces, and since the 1980s, have come to the fore in terms of being an effective element of the force. It is difficult in bureaucratic terms to balance the success of the 250 man force with Satphones destroying the Taliban and the institutional need to have a "Heavy Metal Army" so you have the institutional and budgetary clout to count as "the" player in Washington. As "Small Army" officers gain operational experience and rise through the ranks, we may eventually see an institutional and organizational change, but so long as the threat environment is global and multi faceted, I don't expect to see the overall size of the force decreasing anytime soon.

Further reading: Max Boot: "The Savage Wars of Peace", Robert Kaplan: "An Empire Wilderness" (some historical background) and "Imperial Grunts" (small unit activities throughout the world, including some surprising places).

 

[Michael Dorosh]

There's little doubt we couldn't even begin to field an army the size of China's. However, Canada is wealthy enough to be able to do far, far more than it is doing in the military sphere. Retired general Lewis McKenzie was once quoted as saying that Canada should have a military of about 180,000, army, navy and air force included. A force that large would allow for fairly sizable army - perhaps as large as the 100,000 -strong force we saw before the Liberals started their social engineering regime which almost destroyed it.

In all honesty though, what would Canada be like today had we maintained that large standing army of seven multi-battalion infantry regiments (well, six and the Airborne)? Or the Army?  In the post Vietnam-era, could we have maintained those battalions? I understand Unification was a blow to morale, but so too was the war in Vietnam.  Would it have strained our relations even more by having a 100,000 man army and not contributing to missions in Vietnam with our allies, or say, the Falklands?

And if we did participate in those campaigns, would our "honest broker" status be different today?  And would it matter/ I'd be interested in a discussion on those points. It is easy to point to the destruction of our traditions and the size of our Army - so how do we imagine we would have turned out had we continued to live out Guy Simond's dream?

What missions should we have participated in the 1970s that we didn't because of our declining army? We kept up a solid brigade commitment to NATO and a sizable force in Cyprus as a UN commitment (along with other small overver missions).

I guess I ask in all sincerity, what did we need 13 battalions of regular infantry for in the 1970s or 1980s?

 

[17thRecceSgt]

I actually took the time to read most of this thread...out of some apparant perverse curiousity after reading the 1st post from 2001...

MRM

 

[Loachman]

I guess I ask in all sincerity, what did we need 13 battalions of regular infantry for in the 1970s or 1980s?

Russians.

 

[Lumber]

Russians.

Yeeep. Oh, that and norwegian fishing boats. Or was it swedish? Danish? Oh well, it was scandanavian.

 

[Leonidio]

There are so many positive aspects of having a Military force .And I will name 1 that has nothing to do with the service to the population(humanitary help,etc) ,but with the protection of it.Having a military gives reasons to the ennemy to think twice before invading you.Why do you think the U.S.A dont attack north corea?Or any other country that has "weapons of mass destruction"? Because if they attack them,they might have a bad surprise..Take it this way,if you where looking for a fight,for somewhat reason,would you go to someone that would be difficult to beat,or someone weak? Every nation needs an army,if the U.S knew that iraq had Weapons of mass destrution,they would have never invaded them.Thats the proof that they didint have any by the way.I explained myself shorty,instead of going on with  a long lecture.. Just think about it.

 

[Sapper41]

Leonidio,

It's a free country, but I'll give you some free and friendly advice.  Loose the JTF-2 avatar, maybe your a 'fan' but unless your with the 'band' it's kinda cheesy to misrepresent yourself...yeah just take it down.

Chimo!

 

[Leonidio]

Its good to express you're opinion,and have an open mind.You should feel free to give you're word on anything.And I guess you're right,I am a fan,and as a fan I put that pic because of my interest in JTF2.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Russians.

And we met that commitment with 4 CMBG in West Germany.  I think our victory in the Cold War came more from Ronald Reagan's sense of humour than Canada's standing army in Europe.  "We start the bombing in five minutes" probably said a lot more to the die-hard Commies than our results in the Canadian Army Trophy competitions.

So the question still stands - why bemoan the fact we "only" did it with 10 battalions instead of 13?

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

In all honesty though, what would Canada be like today had we maintained that large standing army of seven multi-battalion infantry regiments (well, six and the Airborne)? Or the Army?  In the post Vietnam-era, could we have maintained those battalions? I understand Unification was a blow to morale, but so too was the war in Vietnam.  Would it have strained our relations even more by having a 100,000 man army and not contributing to missions in Vietnam with our allies, or say, the Falklands?

And if we did participate in those campaigns, would our "honest broker" status be different today?  And would it matter/ I'd be interested in a discussion on those points. It is easy to point to the destruction of our traditions and the size of our Army - so how do we imagine we would have turned out had we continued to live out Guy Simond's dream?

What missions should we have participated in the 1970s that we didn't because of our declining army? We kept up a solid brigade commitment to NATO and a sizable force in Cyprus as a UN commitment (along with other small overver missions).

I guess I ask in all sincerity, what did we need 13 battalions of regular infantry for in the 1970s or 1980s?

You're missing a few things.  First, you need to count 4 CMBG, then you need to include the CAST Brigade commitment to the N. Flank (another 3 battalions), plus a battalion in Cyprus and a battalion equivalent on other UN missions.  That gives us a total of eight battalions.    Then, on top of these commitments, you need 3 or 4 IRU battalions (if the system was the same then as it is now), plus another battalion for MAJAID (a commitment  which went in the 1970s, IIRC, largely to the CAR).

Gets chewed up pretty fast, doesn't it?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

You're missing a few things.  First, you need to count 4 CMBG, then you need to include the CAST Brigade commitment to the N. Flank (another 3 battalions), plus a battalion in Cyprus and a battalion equivalent on other UN missions.  That gives us a total of eight battalions.    Then, on top of these commitments, you need 3 or 4 IRU battalions (if the system was the same then as it is now), plus another battalion for MAJAID (a commitment  which went in the 1970s, IIRC, largely to the CAR).

Gets chewed up pretty fast, doesn't it?

That's what I'm asking. What commitments didn't we meet, that we should have, by "only" having the size of Army we had rather than the one Simonds envisioned?

 

[Kirkhill]

Michael, you can start with the CAST Brigade commitment.

The reason that Mulroney cancelled that commitment was there weren't enough bodies to both meet the commitment in Germany and the one in Norway.  It was decided to concentrate the available bodies in Germany and convert 4CMBG from a large (undermanned?) Brigade into a small (undermanned?)Division.  The decision was made easier because there was not transport to transport the Canadian Air-Sea Transportable Brigade - much less bring them home when things went pear-shaped.

Cheers.

 

[pbi]

IIRC this task was quickly given the nickname of "Hong Kong Brigade" since it faced about as much chance of  success as that unfortunate but brave force. If we could have gotten it to Norway in time (questionable) it would have been very hard to sustain and just about impossible to recover "in contact". Sme people rudely referred to it as "Fire and Forget".

Cheers.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

IIRC this task was quickly given the nickname of "Hong Kong Brigade" since it faced about as much chance of  success as that unfortunate but brave force. If we could have gotten it to Norway in time (questionable) it would have been very hard to sustain and just about impossible to recover "in contact". Sme people rudely referred to it as "Fire and Forget".

Cheers.

At risk of being too deadpan, that strikes me as a non-essential task, then. So I guess my original question still stands - what essential commitments did we balk at due to the small size of FMC?

 

[zipperhead_cop]

At risk of being too deadpan, that strikes me as a non-essential task, then. So I guess my original question still stands - what essential commitments did we balk at due to the small size of FMC?

I was a bit too young to know the full nuances, but seems to me the task was simply to field a viable ground force that would contribute to stemming Ivan the Red Commie Dog when the wave started.  Would not having those units in place, along with the implicit message that the country that sent them was committed to fighting the spread of the USSR, have at least made the Russians think twice about starting something?  Now that we have seen what the plan was (heavy armour, blitzkrieg style advance, hit hard defence, fall back, tac nuke, roll on top high)  I'm glad they didn't try it.  IMO we were kidding ourselves about being able to stop them, at least on the battle field while their resources and supplies held out. 

 

[Kirkhill]

At risk of being too deadpan, that strikes me as a non-essential task, then. So I guess my original question still stands - what essential commitments did we balk at due to the small size of FMC?

By that definition would 4CMBG also be a non-essential task in that it never fired a shot in anger.  It was there to prevent the Russians invading.  The Russians never invaded. Therefore it was unnecessary. 

The CAST brigade fell into the same form of deterrence with the additional problem for the Norwegians, who are the only NATO country to actually share a border with Russia.  Their border is only 100 km by land from Murmansk - home of Russia's North Atlantic/Arctic fleet and its ICBM subs.  The Norwegians thought having a permanent NATO garrison in Norway might be unduly provocative.  I believe the Russians concurred.

The Norwegian's other border, the long one, was occupied by neutral Sweden.  The best they could hope for was that escalation of tensions would happen slowly enough to allow NATO to demonstrate solidarity by deploying troops and the Russians would take their time thinking about consequences....... Then again the Russians might have considered all of that in advance.