For the size of Canada, how large should our armed force be?

[Edward Campbell]

My fear......A few years down the road with the deficit still present, federal debt  high from recession stimulus spending and a political reluctance to raise taxes we get a Paul Martin answer.....cut programs, the big one "Defence" comes with little political cost. We have our new toys but few dollars for maintenance or operation, sound familiar?

I suspect your fear and forecast are completely accurate. Plus, it will not matter if the government-of-the-day is Conservative or Liberal.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I suspect your fear and forecast are completely accurate. Plus, it will not matter if the government-of-the-day is Conservative or Liberal.

Because it's only "sexy" to announce bright, shiny things, not O&M budgets....  :

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

I think we need to bear in mind that Dennis Ruhl represents an important minority of Canadians in that:

• He is highly critical of defence management in Canada; and

• He is interested and minimally informed about the topic.

I say he is part of a minority because the majority amongst our fellow countrymen is:

• Highly critical of defence management in Canada; and

• Totally disinterested and completely uninformed about the topic.

Dennis Ruhl is telling us what most Canadians are telling pollsters and politicians. We should all pay attention and try to remember that the Canadian majority is ignorant and apathetic but it (the Canadian majority)”supports the troops” even as it dislikes the military for its expense.

Not highly critical of defence management - just a different vision.

I must confess to being minimally informed on the airforce and you might as well chuck in the navy.  Besides people that disagree with other people are always ignorant.

I just see no need for expansion of the regular forces when there is no apparent enemy past 2011.  I'm suppose we can find an enemy should we look hard enough.

Defence spending has never won anyone an election and you're right, after 2011 it's only going down and I'm not sure that is a bad thing.  Part of the majority - I sure am.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
Defence spending has never won anyone an election and you're right, after 2011 it's only going down and I'm not sure that is a bad thing.  Part of the majority - I sure am.

And here, Mr. Ruhl, is where your majority discusses its views.

 

[Old Sweat]

Defence spending may never have won an election, but defence policy  - specifically nuclear weapons - lost the 1963 one for Diefenbaker and the PCs. For those that are not familiar with the issue, Canada had agreed to take on a nuclear role for both 4 CIBG and 1 Air Division in Europe and for RCAF Air Defence Command at home. He then procrastinated until several ministers including the MND resigned in protest. His minority government was defeated in the House and the Liberals under Pearson were returned, also as a minority.

Dennis, I am not going to debate defence policy with you. It would be a waste of my time as you appear to have firm opinions, without, as you admit, having taken the time to inform yourself of the issues.

Oh, and as for the level of defence funding, through most, if not all, of the Trudeau era, the direction to the MND was to maintain the/a minimum military capability.

 

[observor 69]

Oh, and as for the level of defence funding, through most, if not all, of the Trudeau era, the direction to the MND was to maintain the/a minimum military capability.

"The Starfighter was bought in 1959 to fulfill a high speed strike and reconnaissance role. In the 1960s, the CF-104 was used as a nuclear strike Aircraft and, from 1971 on, it was used exclusively as a low-level attack Aircraft."
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/v2/equip/hst/starfighter-eng.asp

Trudeau took a "high speed strike and reconnaissance" aircraft and put it in the air to mud role. 

 

[gcclarke]

Equipment and personnel are prone to being re-assigned to fill a role that is needed more than the role that they were previously filling, until such time as the new role can be filled by something better suiting the requirements.

And honestly, I rather doubt that decision was made even close to Trudeau's level. At best, he might have decided not to fund new planes to fill the low-level attack Aircraft role that the Starfighter was re-assigned to.

 

[Old Sweat]

Trudeau's plan was to withdraw our NATO forces from Europe. That this foundered on the rocks of realpolitik should not disguise the point that in the early seventies in Ottawa there was talk of going back to pre-Korean War  NATO numbers. He may not have decided to re-role the CF 104s, but he was not likely to agree to purchase more suitable aircraft for a role that was planned to disappear.

 

[observor 69]

Some badly needed history lessons:

Canadian military forces in West Germany

http://books.google.ca/books?id=8uxfTF4Lm-kC&pg=PA215&lpg=PA215&dq=trudeau+nuclear+cf-104&source=bl&ots=4nphP9YurX&sig=Q7Xl0OyXA3o2_zajIYuDR1BMNsI&hl=en&ei=KgK4SrT5BY3g8QaNm6iTDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=trudeau%20nuclear%20cf-104&f=false

 

[Michael OLeary]

So, we should have continued pumping a few billion a year into th endless European vacation?

Instead of bemoaning Government decisions which have to balance multiple priorities (including the fact that no-one has actually suggested a credible military threat to Canada), perhaps a more useful thread direction would be to suggest and consider force structure options in an uncertain future.  How about starting with the assumptions that the Defence Budget will not be allowing the grand purchases of the past decade? How do we organize what we can afford? What tasks and missions do we train for that any Canadian Government (irrespective of party) is likely to support?

 

[VIChris]

Quite a discusion for a topic that was started with only a    posted.

I fear, that when the Government pulls us out of Afghanistan, we are left with "NO toys", as many/most/all will be left in theatre.

Would they really leave a bunch of equipment there when our budgets are dwindling? Where's the sense to that?

 

[aesop081]

Would they really leave a bunch of equipment there when our budgets are dwindling? Where's the sense to that?

For the same reason that the US left a massive ammount of equipment behind after the 91 gulf war : The stuff is worn out to begin with and it would cost a fortune to bring back.

 

[observor 69]

Well in my perfect world I would settle for a government that took a hard rational look at defence and then properly funded and supported the resultant policy.
I have always said that I don't care how small our military might become as a result of a government implementing a realistic well thought out defence policy as long as it was properly equipted and manned.
But IMHO it would be a historical miracle to see a Canadian, or many other western country's, government manage defence in serious professional manner free of political games.

 

[VIChris]

For the same reason that the US left a massive ammount of equipment behind after the 91 gulf war : The stuff is worn out to begin with and it would cost a fortune to bring back.

I understand there's a cost to transport and refurbish our equipment, but is it really greater than buying more equipment when we need it next? I know for a fact it costs an off the street retail customer only $1500 CDN to ship a car from Japan to Western Canada. Were we to charter a full cargo ship - many of which are sitting idle these days - I have a hard time believing a deal couldn't be struck that would be favorable.

And in terms of leaving old equipment there, does that not help arm the people we were just fighting with? Are our forces not seeing Afghan insurgents using old Soviet block equipment currently? Do we destroy the equipment? I ask thee questions as it pertains directly to irresponsible spending, and public opinion, though I know it's on a tangent from the OP. Maybe a new thread is needed here?

 

[George Wallace]

I understand there's a cost to transport and refurbish our equipment, but is it really greater than buying more equipment when we need it next? I know for a fact it costs an off the street retail customer only $1500 CDN to ship a car from Japan to Western Canada. Were we to charter a full cargo ship - many of which are sitting idle these days - I have a hard time believing a deal couldn't be struck that would be favorable.

And in terms of leaving old equipment there, does that not help arm the people we were just fighting with? Are our forces not seeing Afghan insurgents using old Soviet block equipment currently? Do we destroy the equipment? I ask thee questions as it pertains directly to irresponsible spending, and public opinion, though I know it's on a tangent from the OP. Maybe a new thread is needed here?

When Canada pulled its Bde out of Europe, it left all its vehicles, with the exception of some of the F Vehicles, in Europe. 

 

[aesop081]

I have a hard time believing

I'm not too worried about what you beleive or not. What i stated is a well published fact. You would be shocked by the ammount of equipment left behind by US forces wherever they go. It usualy gets put up for sale to anyone that is acceptable to Uncle Sam and is willing to cart it off themselves.

Most of the equipment we have over there will be well worn and will require significant rebuild/refurb before it can be of any use, if ever. Some of it will be useful and sufficiently valuable to rerturn home, alot of it wont. Is it worth returning kit to Canada that has very little life left ot it ? If its anything like tours i have been on in the past, some equipment is so mission-specific that it has no uses here at home........why bring it back ?


Afghanistan being landlocked only increses the cost and effort required to return barely serviceable ger back to Canada where it is of little use to anyone without a significant further investment in funds.

As far as you car from japan deal, well, one passenger car is not hundreds of vehicles, some weighing more that 40 tons. Its also massive ammounts of supplies........alot of it with limited shelf-life....yadi yadi yada....

 

[VIChris]

I see your point on the maintenance/ lifespan costs. If they're done, they're done. I just figured with the state of the transport industry these days that the cost of transport is relatively cheap compared to the value of the goods being shipped, and that transport costs alone shouldn't be the reason we leave gear behind, nor really be a big factor in it.

 

[TCBF]

When Canada pulled its Bde out of Europe, it left all its vehicles, with the exception of some of the F Vehicles, in Europe.

- And my poor Lynx ended up in a logging role in Hungary, I suspect.

- Most of our vehs will be repatriated from Afg.  I would not be surprised if a few of the 'older' trucks, such as MLVW, LSVW, G-wagon and the white toyota CFR fleet were 'gifted' to a NATO ally, but the fighting vehicles will go to refurbishment.

 

[Monsoon]

Not highly critical of defence management - just a different vision.

That would make you "critical", in that you observe it with a critical eye.

I must confess to being minimally informed on the airforce and you might as well chuck in the navy.  Besides people that disagree with other people are always ignorant.

Ignorance isn't disagreement. Ignorance is the process of martialling inaccurate facts to reach a pre-determined conclusion.

I just see no need for expansion of the regular forces when there is no apparent enemy past 2011.  I'm suppose we can find an enemy should we look hard enough.

Can you agree that on September 10th, 2001 there was no clear "enemy" for the CF? Can you agree that since that date we have struggled and failed to generate the personnel needed to fight the enemy that emerged the day after that date? Can you agree that the role of a military is, to some extent, to exist in the absence of a clear enemy just because it's a good thing to have when you need it?

Defence spending has never won anyone an election and you're right, after 2011 it's only going down and I'm not sure that is a bad thing.  Part of the majority - I sure am.

Representative of the majority you may be, but why should 2012 be any different from 2000, 1989 and 1950? Do you own a magic crystal ball that can predict the exact date that the CF needs to start preparing for the next conflict, or are you deluded enough to believe that the world is becoming a safer place?

 

[gillbates]

Do you own a magic crystal ball that can predict the exact date that the CF needs to start preparing for the next conflict, or are you deluded enough to believe that the world is becoming a safer place?

Precisely. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, "The price of freedom is eternal paranoia - vigilance is not enough."