# What is the future of the Canadian forces?



## Pte. Albano (16 Mar 2005)

I read and article about the Canadian forces to disband within 15 years. This article was from www.CBC.ca. I just want to get peoples output about this situation at hand.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Mar 2005)

Can you provide a link to the article itself?


----------



## Pte. Albano (16 Mar 2005)

Here is the link:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/shrinking_military.html


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Mar 2005)

Umm you do realize that this article was from Dec 2003? There have been changes...whether or not they are enough we will see.


----------



## ArmyAviator (16 Mar 2005)

An interesting an open ended question from Pvt Albano.  Although the original question was maybe geared to the question as to wether or not the CF would be around in 15 years or not, I am interested in what the CF is going to look like in the next few years given the proposed shake ups by Gen Hillier.  The one thing that I am certain of is that things are going to change.  It may or may not go exactly the way each one of us thinks it should go but there will definitely be change.  I have not worked with Gen Hillier but my Tac Hel compartriots that have say that if any man can do what is being proposed he is one of them. 

So I guess my question is will the CF be an improved fighting force but maybe not capable of the the full spectrum of warfare or we will be still limited in all aspects of warfare and be just better commanded and organized?  

My 2 cents is that we will be a stronger and more combat capable force within a smaller spectrum of conflict.  I.E. in a Desert storm type theatre we would fill more of a niche role but conversely we might be able to go into a small theatre or portion there of by ourselves.


----------



## John Nayduk (16 Mar 2005)

I'm just waiting to see the plan.  There has been a lot of guessing but little hard facts.  Anyone know when they are going to release the Defence Review?


----------



## MdB (16 Mar 2005)

Another Recce Guy said:
			
		

> I'm just waiting to see the plan.   There has been a lot of guessing but little hard facts.   Anyone know when they are going to release the Defence Review?


In the coming weeks... was due after the Budget release. Anyway, all medias will go BUZZ when it comes out...

As for the future of the CF, I guess we'll all know the bases in the next Defence Review.

As for Granatstein and his probable 'disbandment' of the CF, it's not so much a problem of disbanding the CF as letting all that crumble. Unadequate management, lack of political leadership, and successive budget cuts did hurt the CF more than anything else in the last 30 years or so. And for Granatstein, I see him a kind of Don Cherry, lots of colors and lacking of judgment... Anyway, I think the Federal Government is unresponsible enough to cut all things in half, but not let it crumble to oblivion. You know, politics is all about looking like... They think like that and, unless Granatstein, yes, but other defence lobbies and scholars relax their claiming of what is right, they will make CF a force 'looking like' an army... a constabulary force.

Cheers,


----------



## ArmyRick (16 Mar 2005)

Albano, as far as actually disbanding the forces? Not likely. We have had a little bit of cash thrown our way. PM attitude towards defence is better than his predecesor.  :-\


----------



## George Wallace (16 Mar 2005)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> PM attitude towards defence is better than his predecesor. :-\



On paper, anyway......well.....every second or third day.....maybe.... :-\


----------



## Pte. Albano (16 Mar 2005)

Happy yo know that our government is doing something to keep our armed forces running.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Mar 2005)

Can't remember the author.

"A country will always have an army. Their own or someone elses"


----------



## Pieman (17 Mar 2005)

> "A country will always have an army. Their own or someone elses"


But who on Earth would feel the need to control Canadian land/airspace? _<Pieman nervously glances southward> _


----------



## PPCLI Guy (18 Mar 2005)

MdB said:
			
		

> As for Granatstein and his probable 'disbandment' of the CF, it's not so much a problem of disbanding the CF as letting all that crumble. Unadequate management, lack of political leadership, and successive budget cuts did hurt the CF more than anything else in the last 30 years or so. And for Granatstein, I see him a kind of Don Cherry, lots of colors and lacking of judgment...



And books don't sell if there isn't some sort of buzz around the issue.

<Dave takes large grain of salt, *then* reads article>


----------



## civvy3840 (18 Mar 2005)

I doubt they would disband the forces... I heard on the radio we are trying to recruit 5,000 more personnel for the army alone.  
( lets hope that's true!!)


----------



## Armymedic (18 Mar 2005)

That, my friends is just a ineffective bandage on the bleeding...what good are the people if we don't have more experienced people to train them, or the equipment to train them on?


----------



## Zipper (19 Mar 2005)

The military is in shambles. Plain and simple. I have read a few books by Granatstein and while agreeing with him for the most part, he does tend to go to a place I am not prepared too. However, to sell books and get peoples attention, that is exactly what you have to do. Otherwise, the media would ignore you.

Wait for the defense review and the Foreign policy review. Those are the things that will point us in whatever direction we're going. However, once again if you look at the way the military is shaping itself now (which always happens prior to the review), and listen to the CDS words as well as the Minister, you will get the feeling that a glorified constabulary is exactly where we are going.

Our job in the future is going to be to send support elements to other military's to help them out, and to act as protection forces and assistance for humanitarian missions. If we ever see combat again, it will be by small units (coy sized) attached to larger commands much like Afghanistan. Otherwise it will be things like "battle" group sized units to support aid agencies and protect non-combatants.

Thus no need to buy heavy lift for our own uses (air dropping troops), no tanks, no SP guns, larger warships (destroyers), etc...

But we need ships to transport troops and materials (aid workers and food/medical supplies), helicopters to move troops around (along with previous), light wheeled IFV's for patrols/escorts (along with previous), and many more armoured recce units to help with the patrolling/assistance to higher commands, etc...


----------



## oyaguy (19 Mar 2005)

I personally think the future of the Canadian Forces is looking up. 

Paul Martin, I think wants to be statesman. He, along with Jean Chretien, made the decisions that had to be made when the national debt balloned to 2/3s of our GDP, with no balance budgets in sight. 
Big whoop. 
What politician wants to go down in Canadian history as the guy who helped put together 10{ I picked a number off the top of my head that sounded plausible} consecutive balance budgets?

None I bet. Paul Martin wants to be a statesman in the mold of St. Laurent, or Lester B. Pearson. For Canada to attempt something like the intervention during the Suez Canal crisis would not be doable today. For someone like Paul Martin, his campaign promise of "5000" new men for a peacekeeping brigade, was idealistic and off the cuff. He, probably like me, was raised with the knowledge that peacekeeping is a noble endeavour that Canada should embrace. Very idealistic but frankly a bit of idealism wouldn't hurt the  CF. Especially when it looks there are people like General Hillier who has the backbone and access the temper such idealism. The appointment of Bill Graham as Defence Minister also looks to me like Paul Martin is taking the CF more seriously. Bill Graham, in my opinion, is a middle to heavy weight cabinet minister, with real influence. David Pratt, the former Defence Minister while appointed as a "pro-military" Defence Minister, didn't have the influence to do what he might have wanted. Same with John McCallum.

The new defence policy will either make or break this prediction that the CF is on the upswing, because Paul Martin wants to be a statesman.


----------



## onecat (20 Mar 2005)

"Paul Martin wants to be a statesman."

Yeah a liberal statesman....  the CF is going to a small part in any goal Paul might have.  To me the Amry and the Liberal party just don't mix.


----------



## Zipper (20 Mar 2005)

oyaguy said:
			
		

> For someone like Paul Martin, his campaign promise of "5000" new men for a peacekeeping brigade, was idealistic and off the cuff. He, probably like me, was raised with the knowledge that peacekeeping is a noble endeavour that Canada should embrace. Very idealistic but frankly a bit of idealism wouldn't hurt the   CF.



Idealism is fine. However if you look at the history of peacekeeping, it is quite honestly a failure. Every peacekeeping mission started is still going on. Why? Because the two sides have no reason to go to the table as long as there are peacekeepers standing in between. What needed to happen, and still does, is to have a set time limit on the peace intervention. In that time, the two sides would be forced to the table to talk it out, and if yea or nay, the peacekeepers would leave at the required time.



			
				radiohead said:
			
		

> "Paul Martin wants to be a statesman."
> 
> Yeah a liberal statesman.... the CF is going to a small part in any goal Paul might have.



PM Paul wants to to be a statesman like all the other Canadian PM's. However, they all want to do it with statescraft and NOT a military option. Yes, they'll use the military as a deliverer of aid and a shield between two states, but they will not deploy them in a battle situation in any large numbers. Not unless forced into it like Mackenzie King. They all want their Noble Peace Prizes. Not a strong nation.


----------



## oyaguy (20 Mar 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> Idealism is fine. However if you look at the history of peacekeeping, it is quite honestly a failure. Every peacekeeping mission started is still going on. Why? Because the two sides have no reason to go to the table as long as there are peacekeepers standing in between. What needed to happen, and still does, is to have a set time limit on the peace intervention. In that time, the two sides would be forced to the table to talk it out, and if yea or nay, the peacekeepers would leave at the required time.



To say peacekeeping has been a failure, is a rather superficial assessment.

Peacekeeping almost always had greater geo-political consequence rather than stopping enemy combatants from fighting. The Suez Canal crisis for example, made use of peacekeepers to extricate the British and French in a face saving exercise that preserved the Anglo-American alliance. Another example is the Cyprus mission, which prevented two NATO allies from going to war, preserving NATO's south eastern flank. 

An exelllent book on the subject is _Canada and UN Peacekeeping: Cold War by Other Means, 1945-1970_ by Sean M. Maloney.
That kind of peacekeeping was how Canada made our name on the international stage.



			
				Zipper said:
			
		

> PM Paul wants to to be a statesman like all the other Canadian PM's. However, they all want to do it with statescraft and NOT a military option. Yes, they'll use the military as a deliverer of aid and a shield between two states, but they will not deploy them in a battle situation in any large numbers. Not unless forced into it like Mackenzie King. They all want their Noble Peace Prizes. Not a strong nation.



Well, Mackenzie King did have World War II on his hands. Besides, when you can pick your battles {As a result of Canada's unique geography}, pick the ones worth fighting, not the ones in the hope for a better outcome on softwood lumber duties.


----------



## Pte. Albano (21 Mar 2005)

will Canada ever have a powerful military presence in the world or will we be known as UN's main supply of their peacekeeping force?


----------



## ArmyRick (21 Mar 2005)

We haven't been deploying large scale UN missions for a little while now. ISAF, SFOR and KFOR were all NATO deployments (NATO ROE are much better to work with IMO)

Does anybody remember if East Timor was a UN deployment?


----------



## vangemeren (21 Mar 2005)

I thought it was, so I went to the U.N. website to check.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unmiset/background.html

For what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong):

United Nations Mission in East Timor (UNAMET) was the mission that involved civil transfer of power (11 June 1999). After military unrest, INTERFET (headed by Australia) was created (by Security Council resolution S/RES/1264)  to restore peace, order, and to protect UNAMET.
(12 September 1999).

Then,



> "In February 2000, marking the complete deployment of UNTAET, command of military operations was transferred from INTERFET to the United Nations Peacekeeping Force. ..."



It goes on to say:



> "... A successor mission, known as the United Nations Mission of Support in East Timor (UNMISET), was set up by resolution 1410 (2002) unanimously adopted by the Security Council on 17 May. The Mission was established for an initial period of 12 months, starting on 20 May 2002, with the following mandate: to provide assistance to core administrative structures critical to the viability and political stability of East Timor; to provide interim law enforcement and public Security and to assist in developing the East Timor Police Service (ETPS); and contribute to the maintenance of the new country's external and internal security."



Sorry about all the reading, I didn't want to leave anything out.

Jack


----------



## pbi (21 Mar 2005)

I've been on three UN missions and one NATO mission, and I remain extremely skeptical that traditional PSOs ever actually achieved much that was truly decisive, as opposed to what was achieved by behind the scenes pressure from bigger powers or other interests, or just other factors that discouraged the combatants from going at it again. I am not aware of any situations since Korea in which a UN force that Canada participated in actually stopped combatants who were determined to fight each other. I am, on the other hand, aware of several that failed to do so. UNPROFOR comes to mind, in particular in the face of the Croat OP STORM in 1995, as does the Angola 1992 mission and of course Rwanda.

Cheers.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (22 Mar 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> I am not aware of any situations since Korea in which a UN force that Canada participated in actually stopped combatants who were determined to fight each other.



Greece and Turkey?


----------



## George Wallace (22 Mar 2005)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Greece and Turkey?




Although we are no longer in Cyprus, the Brits and many others are carrying on the role of Peacekeepers and devision of the Island.

I would not consider that a "Peaceful outcome" yet.

GW


----------



## PPCLI Guy (22 Mar 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I would not consider that a "Peaceful outcome" yet.
> GW



How long do they have to go without fighting each other on the field of combat for it to be considered a "peaceful outcome"?


----------



## Zipper (22 Mar 2005)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> How long do they have to go without fighting each other on the field of combat for it to be considered a "peaceful outcome"?



When they can withdraw all UN forces from the border between the two sides and either they agree on one side getting total control, or for Cyprus to become its own self determining country. Until that happens, as soon as the border drops the two sides will begin again to bicker, then threaten, then start shooting.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Mar 2005)

Zipper said:
			
		

> When they can withdraw all UN forces from the border between the two sides and either they agree on one side getting total control, or for Cyprus to become its own self determining country. Until that happens, as soon as the border drops the two sides will begin again to bicker, then threaten, then start shooting.



And even then that doesn't guarantee any true Peace has been achieved.  We set up some of our first Peacekeeping Missions in the Gaza Strip; which is in just as bad, if not worse off, than it was in the 1960's.

GW


----------



## PPCLI Guy (23 Mar 2005)

Sometimes, there is no "end game".  That does't make the intervention ineffective - just inefficient


----------



## Zipper (23 Mar 2005)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Sometimes, there is no "end game". That does't make the intervention ineffective - just inefficient



And we can afford neither...      ...nor are we equipped, or as it looks like, will we be.


----------



## civvy3840 (24 Mar 2005)

There never will be an end game. There are always will be bad guys, and there will always be war.


----------



## Matt-Z (25 Mar 2005)

radiohead said:
			
		

> "Paul Martin wants to be a statesman."
> 
> Yeah a liberal statesman....   the CF is going to a small part in any goal Paul might have.   To me the Amry and the Liberal party just don't mix.



I completely agree... It seems though that liberal government are starting to realise that they HAVE to do something about the CF because frankly neglect may offset the voting and make them loose the next elelection.. Personally I believe that the CF is going to be bandaged no matter what happens. If the liberals stay in power then they give us the 10billion that they promised, if they loose we get a left wing Conservative party that hopefully will repair the CF even more. Im not saying that these new plans will fix our army, more so than raise the quality to a more organized level.


----------

