Stiff air force, navy general advises

[_Ditch_]

OTTAWA -- The head of Canada‘s army has questioned the need for air force and navy missions, arguing his service should get the bulk of defence dollars. In a memo to Gen. Ray Henault, Canada‘s chief of defence staff, Lt.-Gen. Rick Hillier argues against equipping the navy and air force for many of the overseas operations they now perform, The Ottawa Citizen reported yesterday.

Hillier suggested that in any future war, a U.S.-led coalition would handle air and naval activities and quickly gain the upper hand in those areas.

‘SECURITY‘

"The reality of the emerging security environment suggests that it is unlikely that the CF (Canadian Forces) will be called upon to fight in ‘blue skies or blue waters‘ and the overall value to our country of equipping to do so would be minimal compared to the impact of providing precision land effects," Lt.-Gen. Hillier wrote.

Hillier suggested to Gen. Henault that the money earmarked for the navy and air force should be funnelled into outfitting the army with modern gear.

Navy officers were angry over the memo, as their entire commitment over the last two years to the war on terror has consisted of a blue-water force.

 

[leopard11]

My congrats to LT. Gen Hillier for having the guts to tell Gen Henault and airforce officer that we dont need to supply the air force and navy.
Sgt Taraso, RCAC

 

[Bert]

What is really needed is a plan, or even a process to a plan, that guarantees a future for the military. I wonder if Martin (the likely next PM) will read this thread. Fighting over the measley wad offered by the government is embarrassing. Who really knows in what way the next big event or directive will challenge the Canadian Forces.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

What we need is a balanced military guys not a weakened air force or navy.

 

[Gunnar]

Sounds like a last-ditch effort to preserve something of the CF.

Take as a given that a competent defense force needs all three elements.

Take as another given that the Liberals (and the Canadians who keep voting for them) will allow funding to diminish to a point where our soldiers aren‘t even issued pointy sticks, but have to make their own.

Lastly, notice that airplanes and frigates are more expensive than men and rifles.

If you want anything left of a competent force, then you have to spend the money on men & training. Trained men can make use of new equipment. New equipment is useless if you don‘t have the political will to fund the men to operate it.

Our soldiers, all 12 of them, are the best in the world. But if the government p|sses away the money on equipment and manages to destroy the honour, integrity and history of the men and women who are so willing to defend our country, they will have destroyed the forces. There will be nobody left to train new people in the ways of personal responsibility, competence and the harsh facts of life.

I have always felt that the reason our forces are so well respected is that our training in many ways is an anachronism: it relies on the history and training of the British army, still widely recognised as an excellent force. As a colonial nation, we tend to do things the way they did in the mother country....many years ago. This may make our training harsher than some more modern countries. Good NCM‘s and officers give the proper amount of lip service to the latest management philosophy, then proceed to train as they always have...because it WORKS.

If they cut the funding, they can get those "old boys" out of the system...and then they will find themselves with an army that resembles the Boy Scouts, (although not as well equipped), because you will no longer have *regulars*. They will have a group of people in green outfits with sensitivity training, an ability to fill out forms, and an astonishing lack of ethics.

So I sympathise with the general. If you‘re not going to give us enough money, save the people, not the equipment. The Zulu fought the British with spears and shields...but because they were *regulars*, the British had a he|| of a time trying to defeat them. It is personnel that make the army an *army*, not the tools it uses.

So for God‘s sake, if you‘re not going to give us money (as we have been asking for the past 10 years), then stop spending it on tools and preserve what‘s left of the army!

 

[Bert]

Yeah, but it seems it has to go beyond just one particular element like people, training or equipment. Its the understanding of force structure.

When something is made or created, it is for a purpose. As an example, the RCR is made of companies, units, elements all of which support and make up RCR. RCR is a force structure and designed for particular land force actions. Its is also unit within the Army heirachy and within the force structure of the Canadian Forces.

So, if you have the RCR and take away the griffons as a theoretical example, you lose force structure by removing the ability to transport personnel quickly over land. That would impede RCR operations. The problems transporting personnel over to Afganistan and then cloth them is real world example. We‘ve all seen the problems of manpower, training, and equipment. Yet this isn‘t the core problem.

So, if the Canadian Forces is loosing force structure, its either on purpose, and therefore somebody has a coherent plan, or its being lost
without purpose as many articles suggest and due to political mismanage. This isn‘t because of the military itself, but the politics and politicians that manage them.

In this society, I‘d suggest people like Gen. MacKenzie (Gywnn Dyer has been quiet, ever see his television series in the 1980s about the Cold War?) start (somehow) serious discussions getting Canadians involved. Maybe its time to make the military a platform issue in the next election but it won‘t happen if people don‘t start talking about it.