Don’t cut the Armed Forces
Saving money on military matériel has its own price: higher casualties during combat
Multiple sources have told The Canadian Press that the federal government intends to revise the Canada First Defence Strategy, initially announced by the Conservatives in 2008. Stung by a recent series of military procurement bungles (the F-35 being the first and foremost), the government will now be looking to find savings in the equipment purchases planned for the next 20 years.
These purchases were to have eventually replaced all of the military’s major fleets of vehicles and weapons, leaving us with a modernized and effective fighting force. But the money ran out, so the government must now scale back some of its promises for future military shopping sprees — especially since the Tories are clearly counting on a return to balanced budgets as the feat that will win them the next election.
But here’s the problem: Even though the price tag for the procurement section of the original Canada First strategy was eyepopping, it was still going to be a fairly modest updating and upgrade of our existing military capabilities. If the government cuts that, it will be cutting the Forces.
As originally laid out, the plan called for $45-billion to $50-billion in “investments” to replace “core military capabilities.” These included 15 new frigates and destroyers, 17 new search-and-rescue planes, 65 “next-generation fighters” (later announced to be the F-35), 10-12 new maritime patrol planes and a new fleet of Army vehicles, both to replace vehicles lost or worn out during operations in Afghanistan. Fiftybillion dollars is a lot of money, no doubt. But when you look at what Canada would actually be getting for that price, you see that it is not a huge amount of equipment.
We have written before about how risky it is for the Air Force to consider operating with only 65 fighter jets. The same risks apply to the other equipment. Canada has the world’s longest coastline, so it will be difficult to make do with fewer than 15 warships and 12 patrol planes. This is a huge country, and largely uninhabited, so cutting back on search-andrescue will be tough. The Army can perhaps lower its expectations for how much equipment it needs, and how good that equipment will be, but as Afghanistan showed us, the price of cutting Army equipment before a conflict is higher casualties during that conflict (and also, realistically, more money ultimately spent, as better equipment must be bought suddenly and then rushed into service).
None of the items in the original Canada First plan is exactly a frill. It seems impossible to imagine achieving any big savings without impacting any of these core purchases, or reducing some of the other “pillars” of a strong military that the plan identified — personnel, readiness (training and state of equipment repair) and the military’s general infrastructure.
Sadly, it will likely be personnel that will bear the brunt of any cuts. The Canada First strategy had called for a Canadian Forces of 100,000 members, including 30,000 reservists, and these personnel account for 51% of the military’s spending. Eliminating a plane here or a ship there will be small change next to simply limiting the number of men and women in uniform.
Such a move would be shortsighted. It takes years to train a soldier, and as the military found during the war in Afghanistan, for every soldier you send abroad, you need four others at home, either training to go next or recovering from a recent mission. There is a limit to how small the Canadian Forces can be while still having enough trained personnel ready for deployment to handle all of the jobs the government insists the military be able to accomplish. But as the government hunts for savings, it seems inevitable that a smaller military lies in the country’s future.
This is a shame. Canada should have a moderately sized, well-trained and well-equipped military. A country of 34 million need not raise armies fit to conquer the world, but as a major industrial nation and economic power, Canada needs some muscle to back up its words. Let us hope that even as it hunts for savings in its military spending, the government will remember this fact, and cut only where necessary, and only with great care.
op:
