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

[stealthylizard]

Turning our backs on our allies?  The US is also set to start withdrawing July 2011.  The Aussies and the Brits are withdrawing 2014.  One country just left this past weekend.  Are they turning their backs on their allies too?  I don't know the expected withdrawal dates for other ISAF nations but I think most everyone is leaving within the same time frame 2011-2014.

<edited to add>  While I don't think we should be leaving, as the job is incomplete, I would hardly call it turning our backs on anyone except for the people of Afghanistan.  I also won't be surprised if we are still there after 2011, just under a different mandate.

 

[REDinstaller]

We also can't afford to be the last man stnding. Our Btl Gps are far too small to operate and hold an airfield. We would almost need to have 2 Btl Gps in TFA at a time to do this once HLTA plans kick in.

 

[time expired]

US leaving?.who told you that?.Ah Obama,do you believe everything he says?.Both Obama and Cameron

have added a caveat to their announcements"if the situation allows".We however are simply pulling the plug

regardless of the fact that the job is nowhere near complete,Brits and GIs will fill the hole we leave and do

the fighting and dying for us. To me it is as if after Dieppe , the Canadian government had said sorry we

have had enough ,and bought our boys back home.

What I see as am aftermath to this pullout is another" peace benefit" and a large reduction in defence

spending and you guys that are trying to make a career of the army will spend the rest of your lives going

"bullets bullets bang bang" in Wainwright or Gagetown.

                                                                                Regards

 

[pbi]

What I see as am aftermath to this pullout is another" peace benefit" and a large reduction in defence

spending and you guys that are trying to make a career of the army will spend the rest of your lives going

"bullets bullets bang bang" in Wainwright or Gagetown.

                                                                                Regards

I agree that we'll probably suffer the first bit: most armies in democratic states do go through a cut back, once the political masters believe that the immediate fire is out. We'll have a belt tightening, but then consider that by Canadian standards the Army has gone through most of the last decade spending like a drunken sailor. If we wanted it, we got it, more or less. That will end.

As for the second part: I don't think so. Since we got involved in Yugo back in the early 90's, we;ve been continuously heading off to unexpected, dangerous places. We come back from somewhere, say "we'll never do THAT again", then the next one comes along. IMHO, the overall trend (with a few exceptions) has been for missions to be more confusing and more dangerous. Our efforts in Afghanistan put us squarely in the list of countries that will take on dangerous missions if the political conditions are right. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Cheers

 

[GK .Dundas]

Who? So far I've only seen one example and you provided it. No offense to Ironduke but he's not trained on Leo 2A6 IIRC. I am an end user and have done time in the sand in one.

The area you have pointed out is not a weak point on Leo 2 full stop.

RPGs are a concern for any armoured vehicle...just less of a concern for a Leo C2 or Leo 2 crew.

Please don't post any more Wiki-BS on armour...being a potential RHLI recruit does not make you a SME on anything relating to armour.
Regards

unless you 're on the CBC or inmost of the print media.  :-[

 

[ArmyRick]

I can't comment on Navy and Air Force capabilities because I lack enough first hand information to really make an intelligent decision about that.

Focus on the army. If we do our estimate, I fore see these as being the task/missions of the army
1. Defending Canada; In a most realistic setting, this will be done through domestic operations such as re-enforcing security for international events (G summits and the olympics) and reacting to disasters (Floods, ice storm, major plane crashes). Priority on this would be (in my world) HIGH

2. Northern Soverinty (spelling off I know). Waving our flag through frequent soverienty exercises in the north is important plus we maintain a capability to operate in the north. This ties hand in hand with Deefending Canada but has a unique twist because of the challenges faced in getting troops to the north and the potential of something happening. Beyond a plane crash or some other disaster, I do not see a genuine threat in the north. Priority MID

3. Particapating in International Operations: This is the most difficult one to plan. In the year 2000, no one in the CF would have beleived we would spend a decade in Afghanistan. Then 9/11 happened. So who only knows? Where will we be? I would count on unstable nations and rogue governments (there are plenty) to be the most realistic threats. Yes there is N. Korea but I see that playing out as the modern Asian "cold war Part II" sort of thing. I would reccomend we maintain 2 x battle groups ready to go. Priority HIGH

4. Expeditionary Capability; This ties hand in hand with above. We were looking at one time having a standby task force ready to go but with Afghan being the main effort that seemed to fall by the waist side. Do we want a "marine Force" capability ready to go? Ship bound? Company size? Battalion size? Light or Mech or somewhere in between? If we want to exercise something like this then we would need strong political will to see it happen.

I think for the most part I have defined in my wee little mind the potential missions and task the Army would have to meet. What are the COA we go with is the next question?

 

[pbi]

Defending Canada

Northern Soverinty

Particapating in International Operations

Expeditionary Capability

These all make good sense, and IMHO you have them in about the right order of priority. Pri #1 and Pri #2 are actually linked, since the sovereignty of all of our territory is an essential element of defending Canada. As the Arctic ice situation continues to change, and resources become in greater and greater demand, I think that the issue of our capability to operate in the Arctic will take on a much higher profile than it has now: some of our comfortable assumptions may go away. And, anyway, the security of Canada=the security of North America=the security of the USA. So, if we want to take our relationship with the US seriously, we will always have to be careful not become a security liability for them.

Pri #3 and Pri #4 are also linked, in my view, since if we are going to go somewhere outside Canada to conduct operations effectively, we need some kind of expeditionary capability. Unfortunately, being truly "expeditionary" isn't just an Army thing: we need our Joint partners to provide the lift, the sustainment and the enablers to get there, do it, and get back. We're only the "projectile" of the Joint "gun".

These priorities aren't too much different than what we've always recognized, and I think they are a solid framework for shaping our future Army.

Cheers