PM's New Bde of Peacekeepers (5,000 new soldiers), could it be a SOC Light Force?

[Acorn]

"Stunned" may well be the most polite descriptive of terms when referring to members of our gov't and their understanding of the CF. I've often heard it as an adjective with a noun that begins with "c."

Acorn

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I attended my local Legion Remembrance dinner and had the pleasure of sitting next to one of our Members of Parliament. We spent quite a while talking about the military and specifically A'stan. If I ever hear the phrase "I had no idea" one more time, it'll be too soon. They don't, they live in their own little rose coloured world shielded from the outside.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Well I hope you eductaed him recceguy

 

[McG]

Well they are listening now.  If the government is ready to produce the money (for pay, equipment, infrastructure, etc), then bring on the troops!

 

[bossi]

Well they are listening now.   If the government is ready to produce the money (for pay, equipment, infrastructure, etc), then bring on the troops!

Don't get your hopes up.
The Liberal caucus this week staged a skillfully manipulative farce - a backbencher supposedly introduced a private member's bill to limit funding to the gun registry - at first glance, a wonderful thing ... until one realises that it coincided with the anniversary of the Montreal Massacre ... (i.e. thus it never stood a snowball's chance in the oven).

"Crazy as a fox", as the saying goes.
The Liberals are extremely adept at making announcements over and over again - wasn't it Trudeau who perfected "The Big Lie"?
How many times have they announced the SeaKing replacements ... and how many replacements have we received?
No, sadly - this is all just political posturing, at our expense.
Conspiracy theorists might even point to the thrilling announcements of increases to the Reserves ... and wonder whether the "new peacekeeping brigade" might actually end up being ... a reserve brigade ...
(geez - they might even dust off the name "Permanent Active Miltia" ...)

 

[Infanteer]

Next time we get into a battle and some politician goes to check things out; instead of giving him a tour of the front or showing him through the CP and having him eat dinner in the mess with the troops, they should give him a tour through the field hospital where our casualties are being triaged.

Maybe then he'll understand something.

 

[Garbageman]

I think the Parliamentary Program is a great step forward in educating our elected members:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/focus/DECPR/parlprogram_e.asp

Now if only more of them would actually participate!

Has anyone on here had first hand experience with this?  I'm curious to know how sugar-coated the program is, or whether it's a proper indoctrination.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I think that should be manditory for senior members.

 

[Edward Campbell]

A couple of items caught my eye this morning: first a column in the Good Grey Globe by Hugh Winsor â “ which I am quoting in full for the benefit of those who do not subscribe:

Anyone who watched CNN's venerable defence and foreign affairs correspondent Wolf Blitzer spar with Prime Minister Paul Martin last week would have noted how the Prime Minister skated around any involvement of Canadian observer or military personnel in the coming election in Iraq.

But there was another message in Mr. Blitzer's skepticism. A veteran of countless Pentagon briefings, the CNN stalwart was incredulous when Mr. Martin said Canada didn't have the resources to field and protect a modest observer mission (even if it wanted to, but that is another question.)

"Surely you could find a contingent of a 1,000 soldiers for a few weeks," Mr. Blitzer suggested, leaving no doubt he thought that would be a piddling minimum. Without realizing it, he put his finger on the dirty big secret that has been swirling around Department of National Defence headquarters ever since Prime Minister Martin promised, first in his February Speech from the Throne and subsequently in the election platform, to create a special 5,000-person peacekeeping brigade.

The senior military officers and defence planners know it was an impromptu promise that cannot be fulfilled in the short-term future, and certainly not in Mr. Martin's current mandate, even if the government survives for a conventional four-year term, and even if Finance Minister Ralph Goodale loosens the purse strings.

But those same officers and planners have been reluctant to send this blunt message to the Martin administration because they don't want to endanger getting additional funds for other priorities. So the Prime Minister continues talking about the new full-time brigade, plus 3,000 additional reservists.

Preoccupied with leaking submarines or Romanian dancers, the opposition parties in the House of Commons have not focused on the issue. However, a subcommittee of the Senate defence committee got a piece of the story last week from Vice-Admiral Ron Buck, the vice-chief of the defence staff who set the minimum time frame at five years, mostly blaming fiscal constraints.

The problem is more profound. The Canadian Forces recruiting program is having difficulty keeping up to retirements and the DND planners consider that the best they can do is a net increase of 1,000 full-time personnel a year.

Training is a big challenge because DND is stretched so thin the would-be trainers can't be spared from the sharp end of active duty to teach their replacements. And if DND can find the bodies, what will they do for equipment?

A task force of private-sector executives appointed by former defence minister John McCallum found it takes an average of 15 years from the time an equipment need is identified until the equipment gets through the procurement process. DND officials say they hope to reduce that time lag to nine years. (And that's when there are no political obstacles like those blocking the Sea King helicopter replacements.)

Although the task force report received almost no public attention, it was scathing in its description of DND management. "Without fundamental transformation of the national-level management framework and practices ..... the Canadian Forces will not be able to transform itself rapidly enough to adopt to Canada's changing security environment."
The task force said it was struck by "a cultural aversion to programmatic risk and, as a result, resistance to all but the most incremental change."

So before Mr. Martin can deliver on his peacekeeping-brigade promise, he has to address the broader problem and the logical place would be to start at the top. One of the hottest questions inside the defence and security circles is who will be chosen to replace the current Chief of Defence Staff General Ray Henault, who has just been elected to a senior NATO job in Brussels.

Does the government go for the best political and administrative manager for the top job. Or does it opt for the best soldier or the best sailor? A lot more than the Prime Minister's election plank is riding on the outcome.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041213.wxwinsor13/BNStory/National/

The second is this, by Mike Blanchfield of the Ottawa Citizen, cited by bossi, up above:

Liberal Senator Tommy Banks questioned why Vice-Admiral Buck and other senior officers don't speak out more forcefully about their frustration with the government's spending on defence.

"Somebody with credibility needs to jump up and down and say, 'we've got to stop this tap dancing,'" said Mr. Banks. "Shouldn't there be someone, in the position as you call it of 'senior leadership' in the Canadian Forces, who can stand up and holler and pound on the desk and say, 'this is sophistry. If we're going to do these jobs that you're giving us, you have to give us more resources, you have to pay more attention to this?' "

Vice-Admiral Buck said that unlike his counterparts in the U.S. and Britain, he and other senior leaders in the Canadian Forces are not allowed to air their opinions about defence funding in public.

"This country is different," he said. "We are constrained in our public statements. My position is not to advocate publicly. Mine is to explain government policy."

The dilemma facing DND is well known in Ottawa â “ the Defence Department was told, during the election campaign, that there would be no new money, except that required to 'top up' for unforeseen operations, for at least two years, more likely three or four, no matter what candidate Martin promised.   This was reported, briefly, low down on inside pages, in some newspapers.   The reason it does not become an issue is the doctrine which Ron Buck explained.

Caveat lector: rant begins now ...

There is one small problem: Buck and the senators and the journalists should know that doctrine is both pernicious and dangerous to our democratic values.   The essential doctrine is: â Å“don't embarrass the minister.â ?   That's fair enough; if military officers or bureaucrats want to say things which will embarrass the minister they must, as a matter of proper doctrine, resign first.

When the doctrine goes way too far and, indeed, right off the rails, is when it requires mandarins and military officers to support the government of the day: this politicizes the military and the civil service and that ought to be anathema to all thinking Canadians â “ the fact that it does not cause a great hue and cry leads me to believe that few Canadians actually do think.

The politicization of our armed force reached its nadir when that professionally ultra-lightweight ding-a-ling Maurice Baril stood up in NDHQ and lied about failures of his own people in order to cover up for a prime minister who was, quite simply, too selfish and too lazy to do his duty and fly, first class, to Jordan for King Hussein's funeral.   It was bad enough that nearly 40% of Canadians who voted selected a party led by a cheap, ward heeling, sleazy, corrupt buffoon â “ we didn't need the Chief of Defence Staff to lie and debase his own troops in order to guarantee a $1,000.00 per day consulting contract (with DFAIT) to see him into   retirement.

In fact Senator Banks should have rapped Ron Buck's knuckles for failing in his duty to serve as an apolitical senior officer in a modern, liberal democracy, not as a partisan mouthpiece for the government of the day.

Our admirals and generals do not have a requirement or duty to speak out, but they do have a duty to, at least, say nothing when asked to address anything except the facts.   Buck is wrong: it is not his duty to â ?explain government policy"; that is the duty of the government's members: the ministers.

The last officer to understand this and act on it was Vice Admiral Chuck Thomas who, along with Jack Vance, Kent Foster and Larry Murray populates the ranks of â Å“the best CDS we never had.â ?

<end rant>

 

[bossi]

R.O.J. - thank you.  Your post was more refreshing than a morning cup of coffee.

However, I can only laugh at the situation - when the Liberals realised their election/campaign promise of an additional brigade would not be forthcoming in the near future ... they went one better, and stood up an entire Corps ... !
(i.e. it's all about public perception, not reality or "getting the job done")
http://army.ca/forums/threads/23670.0.html

 

[a_majoor]

The new Brigade will go by the name:

Human Freedom Intervention Protection Field Force, or HUFINPFF.

That also sums up the thought process that created the idea in the first place.

 

[McG]

Tougher, meaner breed of peacekeeper needed: Graham
MIKE BLANCHFIELD
Ottawa Citizen
(Printed in Edmonton Journal - 22 Dec 04)
OTTAWA

Canadians had better prepare for a meaner, tougher version of the stereo typical peacekeeper because almost all of the new 5,000 personnel for the Armed Forces will go towards army soldiers in the hope of doubling Canada's foreign fighting force, Defence Minister Bill Graham says.

â Å“The nature of peacekeeping itself has changed,â ? he said Tuesday in a year-end interview.   â Å“You have to fight your way in. You're going to have to go into a situation where you're going to have to fight to establish stability first and then you're going to have to bring democracy, and institution building and humanitarian aid.â ?   That characterization is squarely at odds with the kinder, gentler peace-keeper image that Prime Minister Paul Martin put forth last year when he promised the additional troops during the federal election campaign.

Canada will return to Kandahar next year and will likely work with the French on a provincial reconstruction team in Afghanistan's volatile south. Graham announced he would travel to Kabul next month to consult with Canadian soldiers stationed there as part of the NATO protection force for Afghanistan. As the Canadian Forces nears completion of its defence review, Graham said the new realities of fighting terrorism and other unconventional threats has rendered obsolete the familiar perception of Canadian peacekeepers â Å“patrolling a lineâ ? in less-threatening locales such as Cypress or the Suez.   Graham said he believes Canadians realize the world has changed and will accept more of their soldiers, in greater numbers, operating in harsher conditions on foreign soil.

He said he'd be ready to present his defence review to Parliament before the House of Commons reconvenes in early February.   The defence review is part of Martin's broader foreign policy review, which included his campaign promise of 5,000 additional full-time personnel for the Forces. At the time Martin predicted the new troops could be dedicated to a new peacekeeping brigade.  But Graham made clear the addition al troops â ” which he conceded would take years to recruit and train â ”would bolster existing units, such as the JTF2 elite special forces commandos.   â Å“We've got a good structure at the moment ... What we've got to do is give it more muscle,â ? Graham said. 'The vast majority would go towards the army, but not 100 per centâ ? The navy and air force would see limited personnel increases. Graham said the army currently has the capacity to sustain two groups of 1,200 troops abroad at any given time, in addition to another 800 to 1,000 support troops.   â Å“If we add the 5,000 we should be able to ... almost double that,â ? he said. â Å“So we could keep a substantial larger number of troops abroad for a sustained period of time.â ?

...

CanWest News Service

 

[Bograt]

I was thinking about this a couple of days ago. MND suggested increasing the size of JTF2. With all do respect to these fellows, why not bring back the CAR? Isn't this the capability he is refering to when he suggests "We need to fight our way in..."

 

[McG]

The government could bring back the CAR, or it could create the light brigade described earlier in this thread.  However, it sounds like the plan may be just to increase the size of things that we already have (and that would still be a positive step).

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Now I could be in left field here, as I have not read the article yet[ I'll do that tonight killin' time] but something jumped at me when I read the headline,
Tougher, meaner breed of peacekeeper needed: Graham

To the average person reading that headline, it would seem to imply the soldiers need to be "different" instead of just saying something like " we need to undo some of the constraints that we put upon our peacekeepers".
Like I said, maybe I'm the only one seeing it that way but that is the way I see it.

 

[pbi]

Personally, I am quite amazed to see these words come out of a mouth of that political persuasion, but then let's not forget what political party brought nuclear weapons into our inventory. I am keen to see how this shakes out, although I can't help the skepticism. Cheers.

 

[Slim]

Personally, I am quite amazed to see these words come out of a mouth of that political persuasion,

The difference between you and them is that when you speak about something people know that you will do what you say...an officer can do no less.

When the Liberals say something (especially about the CF) they want people to remember it just long enough for it to have the desired effect, then fall quietly by the way side...

Oddly enough what Bill Graham said pretty much cut right to the heart of the matter though...It kind of surprised me somewhat that the Libs are astute enough to pick all that up!

Slim

 

[MdB]

Don't know if you noticed it, cuz it wasn't on CFC news page. Still, here it is and very interesting.

http://www.macleans.ca/switchboard/columnists/article.jsp?content=20050110_97176_97176

Another broken promise
A pledge to add 5,000 troops shows the limits of Canada's military capacity
MARY JANIGAN

It was a visionary election vow, cunningly crafted to appeal to our pride and idealism. And it has become the perfect, sad example of the vast gap between what we say and what we can actually do on the international stage. Ottawa, promised the Liberal platform, would increase its armed forces "by 5,000 personnel, creating a new brigade and greatly enhancing Canada's capacity for peace support." A special peace brigade sounded so imaginative and, more importantly, it eclipsed the Tories' plodding vows.

The dilemmas were in the details. Former defence minister David Pratt had planned to ask cabinet after the election to approve the extra troops. But, insiders say, the notion of a separate brigade for peacekeeping was news to him and the defence establishment. Who would train them? Where was the equipment for them and the housing? For that matter, where was the money going to come from? The annual $13-billion budget can barely support the current 60,000-member regular force. Martin's advisers brushed aside those quibbles: by late August, military leaders were gamely insisting that the new defence minister had assured them that they would get the funds.

Then the tale began to twist. By early October, the Throne Speech pledged to boost "our regular forces by some 5,000 troops." No mention of that catchy brigade. For military analysts, this was a relief because building a separate brigade from scratch, from infrastructure to equipment, was recklessly and needlessly expensive. Instead, most of the new troops would eventually be added to three existing army brigades on three bases across the nation.

Don't hold your breath. Early last month, the vice-chief of the defence staff, Vice-Admiral Ron Buck, told the Senate security committee that he still has not received the money to hire those troops. That would start, he hoped, with the coming 2005-2006 budget. Anyway, once he got the funds, it would take five years to add them all. In carefully bland language, he chatted about the need for trainers and recruiters and equipment and housing: that is, all of those problems that nasty analysts had raised during the election. "I was shocked," says Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, the committee's chairman. "The Second World War would have been over by the time they're hired. This is a litmus test to show how far our defence capability has eroded."

In a strange way, it's good the military has not yet recruited the troops -- because the Liberals have not produced a defence policy. Our armed forces are supposed to play domestic, continental and international roles. But what are they, exactly? How long should we be able to sustain troops in the field? Most defence experts say we should have a 75,000-member force to be truly effective. Is that our goal -- when even 5,000 more sounds like a stretch?

"It's difficult to know where we are going and why we are going there if the government has not told the forces about the direction," warns Alain Pellerin, executive director of the Conference of Defence Associations, a military advocacy group. "Paul Martin wants to make a name for himself in foreign policy. But if you do not have credible military forces, you will not go anywhere." He's right. The saga of the peacekeeping brigade is really a sadly cautionary tale about dreams and realities. And, alas, political promises.

 

[wongskc]

the Throne Speech pledged to boost "our regular forces by some 5,000 troops." No mention of that catchy brigade.

What's with the media's hookup on having peacekeepers and not regualr troops?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Don't hold your breath. Early last month, the vice-chief of the defence staff, Vice-Admiral Ron Buck, told the Senate security committee that he still has not received the money to hire those troops. That would start, he hoped, with the coming 2005-2006 budget. Anyway, once he got the funds, it would take five years to add them all. In carefully bland language, he chatted about the need for trainers and recruiters and equipment and housing: that is, all of those problems that nasty analysts had raised during the election. "I was shocked," says Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, the committee's chairman. "The Second World War would have been over by the time they're hired. This is a litmus test to show how far our defence capability has eroded."

Wouldn't ya think the HEAD of the security council and LIBERAL senator should know these things?.....or are the heads really buried in the sand that deep that they honestly don't know?.....and how could that be?