What Should the Army's Role, Capabilities & Structure Be?

[Linc]

Well I think it needs to be significantly larger, currently the Cdn Forces can barely sustain the fairly small Battle Group in Bosnia and the odd 6-month tour here and ther in places like Afghanistan or Ethiopia/Eritrea.

Currently, our Land Forces SUSTOPS is one BG in Bosnia, with a very limited surge ability of yet an even samller BG elsewhere, which is only managed with special govt extra funds or the "rob peter to pay paul" innovations from NDHQ.

We obviously couldnt/shouldnt try to best UK or US, but come on, Canadas current contributions abroad are analagous to sending one rubber dinghy to a flotilla of Aircraft Carriers. (Afghan deployment aside- but even that is now dramatically scaled back to 3 ships and 3 planes, and a few JTF2).

That is not pulling your weight as a country. Dont forget, at the end of the day, Canada still stands as one of the world‘s wealthiest nations, and could easily afford a force of 100,000 personel as opposed to the current force which is 60,000 on paper and about 53,000 actual.

 

[Christopher]

Saw an article in the Globe and Mail today, written by a well-established US military academic:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030812.ucanada/BNStory/International/

I know that most (if not all) of the people here on this forum vehemently oppose a collective armed force which is trained for peace, and not war - which is justified, since the official goal of the CF is to "protect Canada, and Canadian interests and values, while contributing to international peace and security".

But I think he still makes a good point. After all, "contributing to international peace and security" goes hand in hand with a peacekeeping force. And isn‘t peace and international stability important Canadian interests and things that Canadians value?

However, I think he‘s spilitting hairs, regarding a traditional ‘war-fighting‘ military, and a ‘strategically effective‘ military.

What do you think?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Where exactly would we peacekeep? It‘s going out of style....

 

[Jarnhamar]

And when were peacekeeping what happenes when the situation explodes, breaks out into an all out war and were in the middle of two armed and angery forces?

 

[Big Kev]

That is a very interesting article and I‘ve got a couple things to say that I‘ve kept locked up and that I really want to vent out. There are things in the article I agree with but also other things I don‘t. I honestly think that an army should absolutely be ready to peacekeep but at the same time peacekeeping should absolutely not be its main mandate. In other words, peacekeeping should be something that an army is capable of performing say on the side but it should definitely not be its main goal or priority. Peace should be seen as an ultimate goal that all soldiers and armies should strive for. But they should also realize that nothing is for free and that hard work has to be done to attain that goal; that is peace not just for conflicting states but also to ensure that peace doesn‘t get disrupted or taken away back home. So we need to take the proper measures to ensure that we are and always will be on stable footing. Peacekeeping should be a task that we perform and a task that we train for but it should not be the only thing we train for. Peacekeeping should be done as a a favor, a side thing to help out and to ensure the well-being of those caught in a crisis, but definitely not a main primary mandate that all our resources and training should be directed towards. There I finally vented it all out. Thanks for reading.

 

[onecat]

Kev,

I have to agree with on this. I‘ve always thought the role the CF plays as a peacekeeper is very important, and something the world respects us for. But that shouldn‘t be the role the CF is mandated solely for.

The only way you can keep peace is by having a Force that is trained for war and has the equipment for war at hand. If the Cf was only trained for peacekeeping was little more than a police force, why any side listen to us on the ground in a conflict.

Certianly don‘t that Canadian should stop being a peacekeeper, even if that role is changing; but it should never be just that. An Army is trainied is for war, and by that you are keeping the peace.

 

[MG34]

personally I feel that Peacekeeping is a waste of resources and time that could be much better spent on training and equipment.Peacekeeping has got to be the most useless task an Army can do in most of the missions that Canada has been involved in there has been no resolution by either side, a useless waste of time and effort.
Anyone who thinks that troops go on these missions for the betterment of mankind is seriously misguided in fact most couldn‘t care less about either side as long as the FSP and UN cash is rolling in the troops will line up to go.The sad thing is peace keeping is the only way that most of us can actually come close to doing our job,which must always be preparing for war.

 

[Jungle]

If you don‘t have the tools (legal AND physical) to IMPOSE peace, then you have nothing to keep... Modern Peacekeeping is a lot closer to war than it used to be. This is the reason some countries now consider missions in 2 categories: "war-like conditions" and "non war-like conditions". Typical Peacekeeping missions may be found in either, depending on the situation.

 

[RCD]

We seemed to hit a raw nerve on this topic. Under THE lav-III forum.I pose this question to you‘s
What would you like our forces including (navy& airforce) to have?

 

[dano]

You‘re topic seems very different from the question asked.... But that may be me.. I never bothered to read the 80+ posts in the LAVIII topic.

 

[gosho4]

I think so far the Canadain Armed forces have played important Role in PEacekeeping and have been Part in everyone of thhem since the 1950‘s and have commited over 100,000 troops throughout the whole time and have payed their dues almost every year on time.Some 106 Canadian Peacekeepers have lost their Lives but They have lost their lifes for something greater then themselfs .I think so far Canada has gained a Reputiation of being a Great Peacekeeping nation that can rise to the challenge when called upon and I think that Canada needs to Keep on being a peaceful Nation whithin the UN Sphear.

 

[Slim]

Originally posted by GD:
[qb] I think so far the Canadain Armed forces have played important Role in PEacekeeping and have been Part in everyone of thhem since the 1950‘s and have commited over 100,000 troops throughout the whole time and have payed their dues almost every year on time.[/qb]

Well, it‘s important to understand that soldiering and peacekeeping are two very different tasks for a soldier to perform.
Tradionally the Cdn Forces are pictured as these friendly guys handing out chocolate bars to little kids in war ravaged areas, and helping to broker talks between rival nations.

The truth is that Peacekeeping actually degrades an army‘s fighting capability! that‘s why we must train so hard once we come home from some peacekeeping gig someplace across the pond. And if we are unable to keep the peace then we must have the ability to defend ourselves if it comes to it. ( Canadian troops being taken prisoner in Yugo comes to mind.)
It‘s all well and good to be a peacekeeping nation but we must train for war in order to continue the role we now have.

 

[gosho4]

Umm no offence But I think that Canadian Soldiers have proved more then once they can defend themselfs and holdtheir Ground and Provide security at a disadvantage.For example in Sarajevo there were I think a total of 143 Canadian Peacekeepers and for more then 1-2 months they held off the Bosnian Serbs of roughly 20,000 Strength.

also fighting the Croatians in their Sector...

 

[Slim]

Originally posted by GD:
[qb] Umm no offence But I think that Canadian Soldiers have proved more then once they can defend themselfs and holdtheir Ground and Provide security at a disadvantage.For example in Sarajevo there were I think a total of 143 Canadian Peacekeepers and for more then 1-2 months they held off the Bosnian Serbs of roughly 20,000 Strength.

also fighting the Croatians in their Sector... [/qb]

No one is denying the fighting spirit of the Canadian Forces.
But, when an army (doesn‘t matter who) spend time sitting on it‘s collective behind, watching two opposing forces trying to decide whether they‘re going to stop fighting or not, it means that they aren‘t training.
Further, the example you gave is that while there was a limited number of Canadian troops in the city, they WERE NOT AT WAR! They were trying to slip between two opposing armies that were. the most that they got was harrassing fire. Not full frontal assaults.
I‘m not saying anything against those that were there. They did a tremendous job under very difficult curcumstances and should have all of our admiration.
But( and anyone who has been out in the sticks will agree) peacekeeping and war are at the opposite ends of the conflict spectrum.
I urge you to do some research on the subject of conflict verses peacekeeping and maybe talk to some of the others here who have first hand experience in different peacekeeping roles before deciding what you think about this subject.

 

[311]

I think this whole gearing our military towards peace keeping is a mistake. The army is here for one reason, to kill the enemy. Peacekeeping should be an after thought. Because of this we should have full fighting capibility, incase the situation arose where we needed to invade another country.

Getting rid of the MBT is fine, however what are we replacing it with? A LAV-III ? What happens when we get rushed by T-80‘s ? If were not going to have a MBT then we need better support ( anti-armor helicopters ect. ).

I believe ( as others have posted ) we should adopt a USMC like force. However we would need lots of money ( for ships, aircraft, helicopters ) and im sure thats not going to happen any time soon.

 

[Thompson_JM]

I agree alot with Slim and Thunder...

the CF needs to take a role similar to the marines and also utilize the reserve better as well.. perhaps as the brits do, train us and use us as a territorial army. for homeland defence, and disaster relief. I feel that the CF completly underutilized the Reserve soldiers and could do alot more with the CF if they gave us more oppourtunities to go on tours.. if canada sends 2000 troops make a larger component reserve.. I know alot of people (myself included) who would be willing to go.

but then again. what do any of us know? most of us are just Jr NCM‘s Sgt‘s and a few Jr. Officers.. our ideas have far too much common sense and logic to ever accually be implemented!!!

 

[Old Army guy]

Normally there is a difference between warfighting and peacekeeping but the example here that slim uses i disagree....I agree with most here that there is a small difference in "roles" that soldiers play between peacekeeping and warfighting at the start of the mission. But the hair that splits the two is pretty fine.
To use Slims quote they were NOT AT WAR is perhaps not true. Canada does not have to declare war and neither does the UN for a Soldier to open fire.."it‘s in his ROE‘s"..
a soldier that does open fire his only goal at that moment is to stay alive...running through all his "combat" drills deploying his section...bringing to bear everything in his track on one target...
to see that target destroyed....then to mount up again and to drive on.with each member reliving thier part in the attack ..was that not war ?....
Perhaps not according to you. maybe it was harrassing fire....but to me this was Combat....Not every day i spent in Yugo was like this one but they were intersting in the early years....I don‘t think you need a full frontal assault to be at war...To me, all you need is to discharge your wpn in anger...to be trying to take another life before he takes yours. you call it harrassing fire i call it combat...
Every day that we went out on patrol i taught my troops something ,anything to keep them sharp. they knew that while they were in threatre it was real....

 

[gosho4]

Plus a few months later 500 Dutch or Danish troops I forget Lost the Same city against same numbers with more firepower on their Side.

Also Yugoslavia was a 4 way war.Bosnian Serbs Vs Bosnia Vs Croatia Vs UN.

If you look at it there were 28 casualties. Also considering Total UN casualties count up for 261 in all those Balkan Missians.In fact Peacekeeping are alot harder then normal warlike missians sicne they require more.War requires you shoot back and employ your skills in peacekeeping you have to be alot more carefull since usualy you are outnumbered Drasticaly.

 

[Slim]

Originally posted by Old Army guy:
[qb] Normally there is a difference between warfighting and peacekeeping but the example here that slim uses i disagree....I agree with most here that there is a small difference in "roles" that soldiers play between peacekeeping and warfighting at the start of the mission. But the hair that splits the two is pretty fine.
[/qb]

what was the objective of the Canadian soldiers in Yugo? To keep the peace or make it?
I believe that to be the difference.

 

[gosho4]

There was no Difference in Yugo and war.They were there to keep any fragile peace that Diplomats made but Then ended up making the peace.They fought with all sides to Protect the Civillians