- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Defence woes more than money
SCOTT TAYLOR / ON TARGET
http://www.espritdecorps.ca/defence_woes_more_than_money__sc.htm
On Oct. 18, the Polaris Institute tabled a report to the House of Commons finance committee, warning that Canada is spending too much money on defence.
The root of the institute's argument was that Canada has shifted away from the role of international peacekeeper, and we are now committing our fighting forces to flesh out the American-led coalition in Afghanistan.
To illustrate our overspending in pursuit of making Canada a military juggernaut, the report noted that we presently rank seventh among 26 NATO nations in terms of defence dollars spent and that our annual budget is greater than the 12 lowest spenders combined.
Naturally enough, the Defence Department dusted off its tub-thumping, harumphing, retired Col. Blimps to denounce the Polaris findings as nothing but a pile of socialist nonsense.
To make their point, the DND cheerleaders trot out their own scales and complain that Canada ranks barely above Luxembourg and Iceland at the bottom of the NATO spending totem pole when you compare the defence budgets as a percentage of our country's gross domestic product.
Suffice it to say that in this instance, both parties have a valid point. If the Polaris Institute researchers were to closely examine the state of Canada's military, they would realize that the recently announced defence budget increase of $20 billion (over five years) is barely enough to keep our existing capabilities functional.
The intention to purchase aircraft capable of strategic airlifts, new trucks for the army and supply ships for the navy should not offend socially conscious sensibilities, as these assets can be used to deliver either combat troops or humanitarian aid. However, the tub-thumpers are equally misguided in that they consistently refer to "underfunding" as the catch-all explanation for our military's singular lack of capability. What these old warhorses dread most is a straight-up comparison of value for defence dollar with a NATO ally. So here it goes.
The Republic of Turkey spends roughly the same amount in actual dollars ($11 billion Canadian) annually on national defence, as does Canada. With the disparity in our economy, this represents a greater percentage of their GDP, but given that they geographically border Iraq and Syria and have an internal security threat from militant Kurdish separatists, this is understandable. But let's focus on what sort of bang Canada and Turkey get for the same bucks.
Canada has a paper strength of 57,000 regular service personnel, with a reserve force hovering around 14,000. So we could mobilize 71,000 troops in a time of crisis. For their part, the Turks maintain a regular force of about 500,000 and a reserve of close to one million. In terms of combat units, Canada has just three under-strength brigades, and the Turks have four entire field armies, with no less than 14 armoured brigades.
While keen-eyed military buffs will point out that the Turkish tanks are mostly older models, the same can be said for Canada's leopard tanks. The difference is that Turkey is in the process of replacing its armoured fleet with newer main battle tanks, while Canada is purchasing lightweight wheeled vehicles instead.
Canada's army crown jewel is the elite 300-member Joint Task Force 2 commando unit. The Turkish generals can deploy up to five commando brigades (20,000 troops), with most of these special forces soldiers being battle-tested in combat.
In the air, Canada can scramble just three squadrons of CF-18 fighters, with another three squadrons of these planes sitting in mothballs. The Turks operate no fewer than 19 combat squadrons equipped with many of the newer-model F-16 fighters.
At sea, Canada can float 12 patrol frigates, three destroyers, two supply ships and 12 minesweepers, and we have four second-hand British subs still in the workshops. Turkey can put to sea 13 submarines, 20 frigates, 21 fast patrol boats, 21 minesweepers and 52 landing ships, and their navy has its very own amphibious brigade of marines.
Given the Turkish example, it is obviously possible to maintain a NATO-standard army, navy and air force for less than $12 billion a year. So are Canada's defence woes really due to a lack of funding?
staylor@herald.ca
Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
SCOTT TAYLOR / ON TARGET
http://www.espritdecorps.ca/defence_woes_more_than_money__sc.htm
On Oct. 18, the Polaris Institute tabled a report to the House of Commons finance committee, warning that Canada is spending too much money on defence.
The root of the institute's argument was that Canada has shifted away from the role of international peacekeeper, and we are now committing our fighting forces to flesh out the American-led coalition in Afghanistan.
To illustrate our overspending in pursuit of making Canada a military juggernaut, the report noted that we presently rank seventh among 26 NATO nations in terms of defence dollars spent and that our annual budget is greater than the 12 lowest spenders combined.
Naturally enough, the Defence Department dusted off its tub-thumping, harumphing, retired Col. Blimps to denounce the Polaris findings as nothing but a pile of socialist nonsense.
To make their point, the DND cheerleaders trot out their own scales and complain that Canada ranks barely above Luxembourg and Iceland at the bottom of the NATO spending totem pole when you compare the defence budgets as a percentage of our country's gross domestic product.
Suffice it to say that in this instance, both parties have a valid point. If the Polaris Institute researchers were to closely examine the state of Canada's military, they would realize that the recently announced defence budget increase of $20 billion (over five years) is barely enough to keep our existing capabilities functional.
The intention to purchase aircraft capable of strategic airlifts, new trucks for the army and supply ships for the navy should not offend socially conscious sensibilities, as these assets can be used to deliver either combat troops or humanitarian aid. However, the tub-thumpers are equally misguided in that they consistently refer to "underfunding" as the catch-all explanation for our military's singular lack of capability. What these old warhorses dread most is a straight-up comparison of value for defence dollar with a NATO ally. So here it goes.
The Republic of Turkey spends roughly the same amount in actual dollars ($11 billion Canadian) annually on national defence, as does Canada. With the disparity in our economy, this represents a greater percentage of their GDP, but given that they geographically border Iraq and Syria and have an internal security threat from militant Kurdish separatists, this is understandable. But let's focus on what sort of bang Canada and Turkey get for the same bucks.
Canada has a paper strength of 57,000 regular service personnel, with a reserve force hovering around 14,000. So we could mobilize 71,000 troops in a time of crisis. For their part, the Turks maintain a regular force of about 500,000 and a reserve of close to one million. In terms of combat units, Canada has just three under-strength brigades, and the Turks have four entire field armies, with no less than 14 armoured brigades.
While keen-eyed military buffs will point out that the Turkish tanks are mostly older models, the same can be said for Canada's leopard tanks. The difference is that Turkey is in the process of replacing its armoured fleet with newer main battle tanks, while Canada is purchasing lightweight wheeled vehicles instead.
Canada's army crown jewel is the elite 300-member Joint Task Force 2 commando unit. The Turkish generals can deploy up to five commando brigades (20,000 troops), with most of these special forces soldiers being battle-tested in combat.
In the air, Canada can scramble just three squadrons of CF-18 fighters, with another three squadrons of these planes sitting in mothballs. The Turks operate no fewer than 19 combat squadrons equipped with many of the newer-model F-16 fighters.
At sea, Canada can float 12 patrol frigates, three destroyers, two supply ships and 12 minesweepers, and we have four second-hand British subs still in the workshops. Turkey can put to sea 13 submarines, 20 frigates, 21 fast patrol boats, 21 minesweepers and 52 landing ships, and their navy has its very own amphibious brigade of marines.
Given the Turkish example, it is obviously possible to maintain a NATO-standard army, navy and air force for less than $12 billion a year. So are Canada's defence woes really due to a lack of funding?
staylor@herald.ca
Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
