# New Foreign and Defence Policy Statements - 19 Apr 05



## AmmoTech90 (19 Apr 2005)

The new policy statement is available to be viewed below on the internet:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Reports/dps/index_e.asp


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Apr 2005)

Discuss..


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Apr 2005)

Here's some text
(From an email from the MND)
I am pleased to announce that the Defence Policy Statement has been tabled today in the House of Commons as part of the tabling of the International Policy Statement.  You will find the Defence Policy Statement at  <http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/reports/dps/index_e.asp>.

The Defence Policy Statement sets out a vision for the renewal of the Canadian Forces and how they will adapt to the new security environment.  The Canadian Forces will transform to better respond to threats to Canada and North America and to more effectively contribute to international security.  The Defence Policy Statement puts in motion fundamental changes to the organization of the Canadian Forces.

These important changes will require the support of the whole Defence team--military and civilian alike.  In the coming months this vision will start to take shape.  You will be kept aware of these changes and what impact they have on you and your colleagues.  We are building a national institution that Canadians can continue to be proud of and one that will contribute significantly to Canada's security for years to come.

I look forward to working with you to transform the Canadian Forces for the 21st century.


Bill Graham
Minister of National Defence

And now from the Deputy Minister and CDS
Message from the Deputy Minister and Chief of the Defence Staff

Today, the Government released the results of its International Policy Review, including a new defence policy for Canada.  The Defence Policy Statement marks the beginning of a long-term plan to renew and transform Canadian defence to meet the challenges of the 21st century.  The full text of the Statement can be found at <http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/reports/dps/index_e.asp>.

We would encourage you to read the new policy.   It sets out a bold new vision for National Defence:  

-	a transformed Canadian Forces:  more relevant, responsive, and effective;
-	a reorganized command and control structure, centred on the creation of Canada Command - a single national operational command headquarters;
-	a focus on integrated operations of our maritime, land, air, and special operations capabilities to deliver the right mix of forces to the right place, at the right time, to produce the right result;
-	a new emphasis on the defence of Canada, our airspace and maritime approaches, including the protection of Canadian interests in the North; and
-	a focus overseas on addressing the security challenges of failed and failing states based on the three-block-war concept.  

The statement is, in effect, the blueprint for Canadian defence transformation.

The Government's new defence policy sets high standards for us to meet, but it has also recognized that it needs to reinvest in our institution:  in Budget 2005, it announced a defence spending increase of nearly $13 billion over five years.  This funding will be used to expand the Canadian Forces by 5,000 Regular Force and 3,000 Reserve personnel, improve our operational sustainability, and purchase new equipment such as medium-lift helicopters, utility aircraft, medium trucks, and specialized training facilities for Joint Task Force 2.  It will also lay the foundations for further transformation initiatives set out in the Statement.   

The Statement provides a welcome focus for our activities, but it is only the first step, and there is a good deal of work ahead of us in moving transformation from concept to reality.  Change of this magnitude will not happen overnight, but the process has already begun.  The Chief of the Defence Staff has established four Action Teams - on command and control, capabilities, force generation, and organizing for transformation - that will move the agenda forward.  Some of the work of these teams will be reflected in a paper that National Defence will publish in the coming months that will provide more detail on the capabilities and force structure required to implement the new policy.

Your involvement in the implementation of the new policy will be essential.  Operational effectiveness is at the heart of the transformation agenda - and, from Private to General, today's Canadian Forces have more direct operational experience than at any time in decades.  As far as the Department's civilian staff is concerned, the broad nature of transformation means that your expertise and advice - on policy, procurement, human resources, defence, science, public affairs, and administration - will be no less critical if this team effort is to succeed.  As we move forward with transformation, you will be kept informed on the way ahead, and we will be looking to ensure that the overall transition proceeds as smoothly as possible.

The Defence Policy Statement builds upon what we have learned over the last fifteen years, both before and after September 11th.  Throughout this period, whether protecting Canadians at home, or participating in operations overseas, the Canadian Forces have done a superb job, adapting to the most demanding of circumstances.  The defence organization as a whole showed an ability to innovate and make the most of its resources.  The Government was fortunate in being able to draw from your collective experience, expertise and insight in developing its new defence policy.  It has now settled on a new vision for the Canadian Forces, and we know that we can count on your continuing professionalism and dedication in making this new vision a reality.


W.P.D. Elcock								R.J. Hillier
Deputy Minister							CDS


----------



## Matt_Fisher (19 Apr 2005)

Interesting stuff.

What'll be more interesting is how the Conservatives change the policy statement if they oust the Liberals in the pending election.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 Apr 2005)

Change to more robust or less?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 Apr 2005)

and how is this different from a White Paper?


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Apr 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> and how is this different from a White Paper?


This document uses a variety of colours, whereas a White Paper is, by definition, white  

Real answer, I don't know.  Gonna go google that now.


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Apr 2005)

Definition of a Policy Statement:
"The term "policy statement" is used to designate a straight-forward statement or declaration of Academy policy on a particular topic or topics. Such statements usually are short and concise and do not include background information or discussion relative to the policy. A policy statement generally would not quote facts and figures developed by outside sources and would not utilize a bibliography."
Definition of a White Paper:
An educational report made available to the public that expounds on a particular industry issue. 
I know that this may or may not help, but hey, there it is.....



Now to eat lest I smoke.

And this time, I mean it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


:evil:


----------



## Pikache (19 Apr 2005)

http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=6d08fb40-d457-430e-8ac2-aca7d1b19bc4

Alexander Panetta
Canadian Press

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

CREDIT: STEPHEN THORNE, CP
Canadian soldiers listen to a safety briefing prior to embarking on a live-fire exercise.
ADVERTISEMENT

OTTAWA (CP) -- Canada will use more soldiers, more foreign aid and more diplomats to carve its own niche in a fast-changing world, says a sprawling federal policy statement released Tuesday.

The military will effectively double its overseas capabilities within five years with the $13 billion in new cash promised in the last federal budget, says the long-awaited document.

Canada's foreign aid will grow each year while flowing primarily to 25 countries where it is most likely to have an impact.

The federal government will double its diplomatic presence abroad by 2010.

North America will see increased border security measures and also increased integration of its transportation, communications and energy links.

The review, which sets policy for four government departments, is the most ambitious project of the Paul Martin government and was set in motion the day he became prime minister 16 months ago.

Months overdue after a series of rewrites, the review articulates a series of foreign policy priorities the prime minister has frequently articulated. Martin said the review was an attempt to position Canada for success in the globalization age.

This comes after years in which military infrastructure crumbled, the commitment to foreign assistance stagnated, and Canada fielded one of the thinnest diplomatic corps in the developed world.

As new economic powers rise, new nation-states emerge and the threat of terror sweeps the globe, Canada needs to act, Martin said.

"Now is the time to rebuild for Canada an independent voice of pride and influence in the world," the prime minister writes in the document.

"We will have to earn that way in defence and security. We will have to earn our way in international assistance and global commerce."

Critics who deride the Martin government's supposed paralysis and inertia have found plenty of ammunition in the foreign-policy review. The document is being released months behind schedule after extensive rewrites.

The prime minister was critical of the draft versions, and even commissioned a Saskatchewan-born Oxford University academic to help write the final draft.
© Canadian Press 2005


----------



## JasonH (19 Apr 2005)

We're gonna need more money after this review I think...


----------



## D-n-A (19 Apr 2005)

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1113921587079_3?hub=topstories


New foreign policy calls for more soldiers, aid 
CTV.ca News Staff

The government has promised more troops, improved spending on foreign aid and the building of better relations with existing and emerging superpowers.

In its long-awaited foreign policy report tabled on Tuesday, the Liberal government outlined its hopes to build Canada into a bigger player on the world stage.

Stronger defence

Defence Minister Bill Graham said the report marks the beginning of a long-term process to strengthen the role of Canada's military.

"Today's front lines stretch from the streets of Kabul to the rail lines of Madrid to our own Canadian cities," says the 32-page defence policy statement.

The $13 billion in new defence spending promised in the recent federal budget will double Canada's overseas defence capabilities within five years, according to chief of defence staff Gen. Rick Hillier.

The report details for the military:

5,000 new full-time soldiers; 
the formation of a special operations task force; and 
a plan to purchase new ships, new aircraft and new vehicles.
Hillier says all of the above will be done by 2010.

"A five-year plan is what we're working towards to lay out the transformation of the Canadian Forces,'' Hillier tells the Canadian Press. "We have to challenge our acquisition system to go out and do the job."

The document says, after years of neglect, Canada's military must adapt to a new defence and security environment.

It calls for new high-tech capabilities and greater use of satellites and unnamed spy aircraft.

The report also outlines the formation of a special operations group, which will marry the elite Joint Task Force 2 commando unit with air and sea assets.

The government also promised improvements on its ability to respond to disasters. Two special task forces promised by the government include:

a special response team available for command in the case of any threat, including chemical and nuclear, from abroad; and 
a quick response team to deal with foreign and domestic threats, which will be a full integration of maritime, land and air units.
"They will arrive on the scene faster, make a rapid transition to operations once there, move more effectively within theatre, and sustain deployments, in some cases for extended periods," says the document.

After the December tsunami devastation in south and southeast Asia, Canada's 200-strong disaster relief team (DART) was hampered by political arguments over hiring cargo planes and took more than two weeks to reach the affected areas. 

Foreign aid

The government also announced a yearly increase to foreign aid that will go primarily to 25 countries -- a dramatic decrease from the more than 150 nations presently eligible for aid from Canada.

But the Liberals contend that this will ensure the poorest nations of the world, in need of the most help, will be getting it. 

The new foreign-aid measure will ensure Canadian tax dollars "make a real difference in the world," says International Co-operation Minister Aileen Carroll.

Trade

The prime minister also outlines in the report the need for Canada to become "an independent voice of pride and influence in the world," as new economic powers like India and China are on the rise and as the threat of terror sweeps the globe.

"We will have to earn that way in defence and security. We will have to earn our way in international assistance and global commerce," says Martin.

The report acknowledged the U.S. as Canada's most crucial trading partner, but offered no solutions for resolving high-priced disputes on trade issues such as softwood lumber and the re-opening of the American border to our cattle.

Instead, the document outlined ways Canada can improve its business relations with booming China and India. It also suggested deepening trade links through a free trade agreement with South Korea.

With reports from The Canadian Press


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 Apr 2005)

I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## aesop081 (19 Apr 2005)

pre-election rubbish...nothing more !


----------



## a_majoor (19 Apr 2005)

JasonH said:
			
		

> We're gonna need more money after this review I think...



Only if we are a "Liberal Friendly" army

We will have to sit down and read this very closely.* Does this document define Canada's "National Interest" and set overarching mission goals (Commander's Intent) for the various departments to achieve*? Unless that is the theme of the document, then we will still be spinning our wheels waiting in vain for that $13.5 billion dollars, and watching our time, effort and energy (not to mention blood and treasure) be expended on the "crisis of the week" without consideration of what direct impact this will have on Canada.

Sad to say, but we do have to make choices in life, and in the future, we may have to ignore humanitarian crisis or "ethnic cleansing" (not that we don't anyway) *for the simple fact we have no resources to expend on places which do not materially impact on Canada*. Better to focus our resources in places which affect us and where we can make a difference as opposed to flailing wildly about and dithering about what to do.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (19 Apr 2005)

Here's a link to the real document, rather than wade through the media's analysis:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/reports/dps/index_e.asp

Watch and shoot!


----------



## MikeM (19 Apr 2005)

Sounds good, but like everything.. if its too good to be true.. then it usually is.


----------



## MdB (19 Apr 2005)

My message was merged in this thread.

Main document: A Role of Pride and Influence in the World: http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/cip-pic/ips/overview-en.asp

Here's the new Defence Policy Statement: http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Reports/dps/index_e.asp


> On behalf of the Government, I would like to talk to you about an important new policy that will transform the future of defence and security in Canada. The new Defence Policy Statement builds on the National Security Policy and the International Policy Statement, which sets out the overall objective of making Canada more relevant in the world.
> 
> A Role of Pride and Influence in the World is the first review of Canada's defence policy in more than 10 years, and presents a vital new vision for the Canadian Forces that is firmly grounded in the realities of the post-Cold War, post-September 11th world. It is also informed by the rich operational experience of the Canadian Forces, both in Canada and locations ranging from Afghanistan to the Balkans, to Haiti.Events such as the tragic attacks against our neighbours on September 11, 2001, demonstrate that Canada is also vulnerable to terrorism and threats emanating from failed and failing states around the world.
> 
> ...


----------



## INFRES (19 Apr 2005)

When it says the new special forces task force will marry jtf2 does that mean join it and expand it? or will it bea completly different task force? What would its tasks include if it was completly seperate unit from jtf2?


----------



## enfield (19 Apr 2005)

I find the numbers thrown around interesting - 5,000 new regs, 3,000 reservists, $13 billion over five years. Did they pull these numbers out of a hat? Did someone honestly sit down, look at Canadian defence requirements, future security needs, operational rotations, force generation ability, and come to the conclusion that the military needed 5,000 personnel?

No, of course not. 5,000 is a number that was catchy and sounded good on the campaign trail, and had little to do with reality. Now Martin is busy trying to justify it. Same with the money - its not "to do our role we need equipment X, give us money" its "we can give you this much money. See what you can get" - backwards. We end up with an ad hoc, poorly organized system of equipment, and I don't see this changing. Without a defence and foreign policy White Paper, defining our objectives and needs, this is all wasteful and confused. 

However, there is a lot of positive stuff here and I'm honestly excited for the future of the CF. Upcoming operations, training, and general opportunities look good. With this policy review, the larger budget, Graham as MND, and Hillier as CDS, things look brighter. 

Here's a question: what happens, as seems likely, the Liberal gov't falls over the Gomery Inquiry and the Conservatives form a minority or majority gov't after an election? Does all of this disappear?


----------



## civvy3840 (19 Apr 2005)

Darn beat me to it.

How big is the 2005 budget? and what are the governments plans to make the Forces stronger? I've heard they are trying to get 5,000  new army guys, some new helicopters or planes ( can't remember), and a few more ships for the navy. Is all of this correct?


----------



## Kal (19 Apr 2005)

Enfield said:
			
		

> Here's a question: what happens, as seems likely, the Liberal gov't falls over the Gomery Inquiry and the Conservatives form a minority or majority gov't after an election? Does all of this disappear?



        In my opinion, if the conservatives win a minority, things will be kept pretty much the same with some tweaking into larger figures, but will still be 'tamed' by the libs and NDP.   However, a majority win, I would think that they would radical change the forces for the better and their financial numbers would be much larger for the forces.   I remember them saying, they wanted to increase the forces strength to 80,000, it didn't say anything about the reserves, but them included, it would lead me to believe the total would be well over 100,000 personnel.   With that said, I am by no means a political analyst, but I believe the figures can still be found on the conservative website, Google it. 

sorry I meant to say regular force strength was to be increased to 80,000


----------



## Old Sweat (19 Apr 2005)

Gord O'Connor, the Conservative defence critic, essentially said what Karl predicted just a few minutes ago on Newsworld. The only difference was a regular strength of 75,000. He also said the decision making and procurement system would have to be streamlined. (I am a hopeless cynic, but I have always believed that the DND captial acquissition system was designed to keep lots of people busy when the department did not have the money to buy anything.)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (19 Apr 2005)

civvy3840 said:
			
		

> Darn beat me to it.
> 
> How big is the 2005 budget? and what are the governments plans to make the Forces stronger? I've heard they are trying to get 5,000   new army guys, some new helicopters or planes ( can't remember), and a few more ships for the navy. Is all of this correct?



Umm you do know we have discussed the new 2005 budget here already haven't you?


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Apr 2005)

I actually started to snicker when I read the part about satellite guided bombs after having digested the earleir "not being anybody's handmaiden" diatribe. If this is the best that a PHD from Oxford can come up with, we really are a lost cause as a country and Oxford better take a good look at their entrance and graduation requirements. Tell me the CDS played little to no role in this document.


----------



## GENOMS Soilder (19 Apr 2005)

MikeL said:
			
		

> http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1113921587079_3?hub=topstories
> 
> 
> The report details for the military:
> ...



Air and Sea assets eh? could we be talking about an Amphibious Assault Squad?
And with the new ships, air craft and vehicles-has there been any word on who gets majority?Land, Sea or Air?
This sounds somewhat good, but it has that foul stench of election talk. :-\


----------



## daniel h. (20 Apr 2005)

Time to address a few things:



> The prime minister also outlines in the report the need for Canada to become "an independent voice of pride and influence in the world," as new economic powers like India and China are on the rise and as the threat of terror sweeps the globe.



This is how Martin plans to increase Canadian independence, while I play with the order of this article:



> North America will see increased border security measures and also increased *integration* of its *transportation, communications and energy links*.




Here is Martin's exciting vision of Canada--purely economic:



> "The report acknowledged the U.S. as Canada's most crucial trading partner, but offered no solutions for resolving high-priced disputes on trade issues such as softwood lumber and the re-opening of the American border to our cattle."




Say it with me Mr. Martin:  P-r-o-t-e-c-t-i-o-n-i-s-m.



> Instead, the document outlined ways Canada can improve its business relations with booming China and India. It also suggested deepening trade links through a free trade agreement with South Korea.



This will be in addition to our coming free-trade agreement with India. Just think, free-trade with America cost us over 2 million manufacturing jobs, think about how many jobs we can cut if we trade with a third-world country. Oh boy!  Just think, if have no jobs, then we won't have to work!!!


----------



## Whiskey_Dan (20 Apr 2005)

Hmmm, well if no one had work, just think of all of the possible recruits the CF would have ....just a side thought anyways. I do not support free trade, never has really worked, never will really work. All this sounds wayy too good to be true coming from the liberals whom I have no more faith in.
They're even trying to undermine OUR DEMOCRACY by telling the opposition when they can have opposition days!!

Dan


----------



## career_radio-checker (20 Apr 2005)

Just my rant:

I think this foreign policy is just what our organization (the military) needs. It seems that since the Cold War we never had a defined purpose for this coutry, and if there was a purpose it was almost always in support of the US's policies. (Yes, I know our main purpose is the defense of Canada, but we don't fight wars in Canada now do we? Its all about foreign policy. -- that's the key place where we can play a major role.)

If Martin means what he says about "not being the handmaiden of other coutries" and "having a major influence on the world," the 13 billion should be invested into 'deployment capabilities.' In global politics, First impressions mean alot. Remember the incident off the eastcoast when that shipping vessel refused to turn over CF equipment and personel and the special forces had to go in and basically take over the ship? Or how the media mocks us for using Russian planes to transport our equipment? Or more recently, the 2 weeks it took to Deploy DART to Sri Lanca (yes I know some of that was a political debacle -- but still--- they had to wait for the Russian planes). When Dart finally got there they had to push and shove with NGOs to find a spot to deploy.
Being where you're needed and moving there with a sense of urgency can say alot about your commitment and capabilities when it comes to foreign relations. You don't even need state of the art equipment, just being there ahead of everyone else goes a long way.
I mean, if you're waiting outside in the pi$$ing rain for your friend to pick you up from the gym. Do you care if he shows up 30 minutes late in a BMW? Or, would you rather him to arrive on time with his beat-up pinto?

I say first things first. Replace the Hercs with larger aircraft capable of transporting a fully assembled LAV III. Replace the old preserver class ship and get ships that can transport equipment (maybe even a few landing crafts). Heavy lift transport (Chinook) Helicopters have proven their worth in other armies and I think they could go very far in the Canadian. And lastly Bring back the Airborne.

Keep the CF light, mobile and agile, and we can make quite the impression on the world as a fast response force that has its own independent foreign policy which keeps it free of the UN and NATO red tape (i.e. waithing for other nations to agree to commit troops). I mean hey.   not to sound zealous but our foreign policy already mirrors that of the UN and it is already safeguarded from being interpreted as "imperialism" because of the outrage such accusations would cause back here at home.

Bush has already proved the inefficiencies of the UN and on many occassions we have been willing to go to places where we are needed and take the actions necessary to avoid catastrophes (think Rwanda, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Darfur) but have always been held back by the red tape of the UN.   

What do you think?


----------



## Guardian (20 Apr 2005)

career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> I say first things first. Replace the Hercs with larger aircraft capable of transporting a fully assembled LAV III.



I agree with most of what you said, but this idea of LAV-capable airlift is something that keeps coming up in discussions like this, in the media, here, and elsewhere - and I always shake my head. Canada will NEVER afford the number of long-range aircraft capable of carrying LAV-IIIs in any quantity large enough to make a difference. Or in other words, a C-17 is something like $350 million Canadian each - and (correct me if I'm wrong) they can only carry 2 LAVs apiece. The CF may very well buy 4 or 5 of these aircraft - I hope so - but to pin our hopes on them to carry LAVs around is unrealistic, unless the CF intends to deploy future tours in platoon or at most company strength. 

If we want to both stay relevant AND retain a mostly mechanized land force, then the most important thing we need is fast sealift. Three or four large RO-RO vessels will carry a brigade; you would need thousands of C-17 sorties by hundreds of aircraft over a period of weeks to do the same thing. Airlift is great for getting light forces around, for putting small intervention forces in place quickly, and most importantly, for supplying forces already in place, but for larger-scale deployments of mechanized forces sealift is far more economical.


----------



## McG (20 Apr 2005)

civvy3840 said:
			
		

> and what are the governments plans to make the Forces stronger?


Funny you should ask this.  Follow any of the above links to get that answer, or try my link (which is almost the same):
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/reports/dps/main/toc_e.asp


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Apr 2005)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> Aren't we all about free trade?  So then why does the auto pact have provisions that manufacturing has to occur in Canada if America wants to sell cars in Canada?
> 
> Well, the way I see it the gravy train is ending an it will be none too soon for me.



The auto pact was dissolved a few years ago because it operated as an illegal constraint against off shore manufactureres under the rules of the WTO. 

The driving force behind manufacturing in Ontario is the availability of a large pool of skilled labour which comes at a bargain basement price due to the exchange rate. Where regulatory mechanisms operate to interfere with such skittish markets like the auto sector, the industries tend to concentrate where there are less fetters and a more disciplined/stable labour market. As a result, the industry is shrinking in Quebec and marginally growing in Ontario. There are also growing problems with the integrity of the business profession in Quebec vis the ROC, which scares investors out of the province without artificial incentives such as subsidies to preserve their ionvolvment in that province.  

The high cost of skilled labour in the US is also working to Canada's advantage.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Apr 2005)

Guardian said:
			
		

> I agree with most of what you said, but this idea of LAV-capable airlift is something that keeps coming up in discussions like this, in the media, here, and elsewhere - and I always shake my head. Canada will NEVER afford the number of long-range aircraft capable of carrying LAV-IIIs in any quantity large enough to make a difference. Or in other words, a C-17 is something like $350 million Canadian each - and (correct me if I'm wrong) they can only carry 2 LAVs apiece. The CF may very well buy 4 or 5 of these aircraft - I hope so - but to pin our hopes on them to carry LAVs around is unrealistic, unless the CF intends to deploy future tours in platoon or at most company strength.
> 
> If we want to both stay relevant AND retain a mostly mechanized land force, then the most important thing we need is fast sealift. Three or four large RO-RO vessels will carry a brigade; you would need thousands of C-17 sorties by hundreds of aircraft over a period of weeks to do the same thing. Airlift is great for getting light forces around, for putting small intervention forces in place quickly, and most importantly, for supplying forces already in place, but for larger-scale deployments of mechanized forces sealift is far more economical.



Hear, hear! the argument for "jointness". The C-17 costs a cool $250 million USD per unit, and it takes 25 chalks to lift a LAV battlegroup (this is "dry" and without the logistics supplies and support to actually do the job). Having C-17s for the CF to make long distance deployments and carry outsized items is a good idea, but it also has to be scaled to the financial resources we have. A squadron of 6 to replace the "Airbus" fleet is probably maxing out the resources we could apply to airlift.

Fast ships are the way to go, but this also implies a boost in the size of the Navy, since we would also need warships to escort the RO-ROs and provide some support for the troops ashore. The Air Force also needs to expand in order to support both the fleet at sea and the expeditionary force on the ground.

All this is contingent on the Policy review and ultimate "White Paper" actually defining the Grand Strategy of Canada so we can allocate resources to support the overarching vision. (This could also go south really fast, look at what happened to the last White Paper).  I have not finished reading it, but it is very vague in the "commander's intent", which is also a recipie for disaster. What exactly are we supposed to be planning for? Policy papers are only as good as the government that impliments them. Given the past record of the Liberals, the paper is just that; a paper. Only time will tell (Say mid June  ;D)


----------



## JasonH (20 Apr 2005)

> *Canada pledges to bolster military *
> Web posted at: 4/20/2005 9:26:39
> Source ::: Agencies
> OTTAWA: The Canadian government pledged yesterday to streamline its entire foreign policy, with reforms to the military, increased cooperation in North America and a streamlining of its foreign aid programme.
> ...



http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Di...th=April2005&file=World_News2005042092639.xml

This should get interesting...


----------



## ImanIdiot (20 Apr 2005)

Here is a few comments and questions, just to stir the pot a little...

I will admit I am pretty ignorant when it comes to how the Navy fits into the grand scheme of things.  Outside of boarding parties in support of land ops, I am completely unfamiliar with what it is they do. However my ignorance on any given topic hasn't stopped me from sharing my opinion before, and I see no reason why it should stop me now   

If Canada were to persue this new fangled sea lift capability, would the Navy have to change the way it does business as well? For example, if today's navy is tasked with general patrolling in support of land ops, would they have to re-role into a more direct support role, such as overwatch while landing troops in some "failing state", direct supply for the troops who land, etc etc? How will that affect the usefulness of the equipment of what they already have? What I am trying to say is when an army changes its role/focus, it can involve a huge amount of new equipment and training...is it safe to assume the navy would need someting similar?

Furthermore, does Canada need to develop a unit that specialises in dealing with these Roto 0 situations? A traditional marine type unit?


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Apr 2005)

I have only had one quick read through the IPS document.  It is a bit of a jumble - too much detail, _programme_ level detail, in some areas; too broad a brush, even for a _policy statement_ which is more like an old fashioned Green Paper than a White Paper.*  The document is too full of platitudes and generalizations - something for every possible _constituency_ and too full of repeats from the budget - 5,000 more people, etc, and too empty of new ideas.

I see that a couple of Jennifer Welsh's ideas made it:

"¢	No more _middle powers_; and

"¢	A _niche military_.

I don't, normally, think much of Jeffrey Simpson's foreign policy 'ideas' but I think he has got some good points - highlighted by me - below, from today's _Globe and Mail_ at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050420/COSIMP20/TPColumnists/



> A reasonable guide to Canadian foreign policy
> 
> By JEFFREY SIMPSON
> Wednesday, April 20, 2005 Page A17
> ...



I will take some time over the next few days to read the IPS in detail and make my own comments, here.

----------
* A _Green Paper_ is meant to be a consultation document issued by the government containing policy proposals for debate and discussion before a final decision is taken on the best policy option. A Green Paper will often contain several alternative policy options. Following this consultation the government will normally publish firmer recommendations in a White Paper.   A White Paper is a document issued by a government department which contains detailed proposals for legislation. It is the final stage before the government introduces its proposals to Parliament in the form of a Bill or in the Budget. When a White Paper is issued, it is often accompanied by a statement in the House from the secretary of state of the department sponsoring the proposals. A White Paper is sometimes produced following the consultation process which is undertaken when the government issues a Green Paper.


----------



## Kal (20 Apr 2005)

MasterPrivate said:
			
		

> Furthermore, does Canada need to develop a unit that specialises in dealing with these Roto 0 situations? A traditional marine type unit?



     yeah, we had a unit like that and for that purpose....  the Airborne Regiment.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Apr 2005)

Kal said:
			
		

> yeah, we had a unit like that and for that purpose....   the Airborne Regiment.



Ah!   That would be a big yes and a NO.   They were a Quick Reaction Force for Canadian Sovereignty missions, not necessarily for foreign operations.   They were capable to be deployed, but were seldom sent outside of Canada.   They were in Cyprus for the War, in 1974, between the Greeks and Turks, but didn't deploy again outside of Canada until Somalia.


----------



## civvy3840 (20 Apr 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Umm you do know we have discussed the new 2005 budget here already haven't you?



Sorry when I posted that I was kind of falling asleep so just disregard that post.


----------



## enfield (20 Apr 2005)

Edward Campbell- I would disagree with the assertion in the article you posted regarding a trend towards a unipolar world.

The trend as I see it is actually going in the other way. Regional power blocs are asserting themselves more so than before, and this only increase will continue. While the US certainly has a preponderence of military strength, economic and political strength is far more diffused. In regional affairs, China, Japan, and Europe can directly challenge the US. This trend will grow; by 2040, so the economists with crystal balls tell us, the ranking of powers will be much different. China, US, then India, Europe then a bunch of middle-power types. Now I don't entirely buy these predictions, but I do see growing counter-balances to US hegemony. I also see severe limits to what any one state can accomplish in the world, given the transnational nature of many problems. 

I see a multi-polar world developing and a world where multilateralism is a necessity. Canada is a large player in this world, and I see our role growing beyond what it has been in the past. Given our economic strength, moral and political authority, and relatively new independence from the UK and growing independence from the US, I think we're on our way to becoming a real country.  

This policy paper was full of good ideas and broad, sweeping statements, which I guess is its purpose, but until there are solid numbers and acquisition plans laid out, its meaningless. 

Oh - and I hate the idea of a 'niche' military... Its a policy for irrelevance. Would any advocate a niche police service?


----------



## Allen (20 Apr 2005)

A lot of people on this board who believe the Conservatives are the solution to everything, I notice. Sure, it's reasonable to be skeptical of a Liberal defence policy. But do you honestly believe a Conservative defence policy would be more credible? If so, where are our 12 nuclear subs? Our 400 tanks? Anyone remember those promises? Mulroney's grand plan folded like a cheap suitcase, with "deficit-fighting" as a flimsy excuse. 

At least the Liberal gov't eventually delivered on all the equipment proposed in the 1994 White Paper, as inadequate as that was.

Conservative commitment to defence is as shaky as Liberal...Harper & friends talk a good game, that's all. Your blind faith in the Cons will be shaken when they come to power, trust me.


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Apr 2005)

Allen said:
			
		

> A lot of people on this board who believe the Conservatives are the solution to everything, I notice. Sure, it's reasonable to be skeptical of a Liberal defence policy. But do you honestly believe a Conservative defence policy would be more credible? If so, where are our 12 nuclear subs? Our 400 tanks? Anyone remember those promises? Mulroney's grand plan folded like a cheap suitcase, with "deficit-fighting" as a flimsy excuse.
> 
> At least the Liberal gov't eventually delivered on all the equipment proposed in the 1994 White Paper, as inadequate as that was.
> 
> Conservative commitment to defence is as shaky as Liberal...Harper & friends talk a good game, that's all. Your blind faith in the Cons will be shaken when they come to power, trust me.



If you surf around the site, I'm sure the more senior posters will have made the same points that you have. I believe the general consenus on the board is nobody actually has any use for politicians of any particular variety, so IMHO that would make most of us no different than the RoC.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Apr 2005)

I have no "Blind faith" in the Conservatives, but given the real dearth of alternatives, we at least owe it to ourselves to give them a chance. (Can you imagine the NDP Defense White Paper?).

Given that, I find Harper's performance very unsettling, the guy has vanished behind the "cloaking device" and I have not seen too many substantial ideas coming from that side of the house. Unless Infanteer is running for Imperator, I am hard pressed to find other alternatives.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (20 Apr 2005)

Allen said:
			
		

> A lot of people on this board who believe the Conservatives are the solution to everything, I notice. Sure, it's reasonable to be skeptical of a Liberal defence policy. But do you honestly believe a Conservative defence policy would be more credible? If so, where are our 12 nuclear subs? Our 400 tanks? Anyone remember those promises? Mulroney's grand plan folded like a cheap suitcase, with "deficit-fighting" as a flimsy excuse.


Fair comment ... Chretien demonstrated that there was at least $100million immediately available for new aircraft.



> At least the Liberal gov't eventually delivered on all the equipment proposed in the 1994 White Paper, as inadequate as that was.


Good to see all those operational Maritime Helicopters (you DO remember that they started by _cancelling _the MHP purchase, right?) ... IIRC most of the 1994 Defense White Paper related to CUTS: as in less total numbers, less CF-18s, etc.:  _"thanks."_



> Conservative commitment to defence is as shaky as Liberal...Harper & friends talk a good game, that's all. Your blind faith in the Cons will be shaken when they come to power, trust me.


"Vote for the Liberals, because the Conservatives might be almost as bad!"   ???

I thought the line was now something like 'a vote for the Conservatives is a vote for the break-up of Canada': are you scheduled to testify before the Gomery commission?


----------



## career_radio-checker (21 Apr 2005)

Guardian said:
			
		

> I agree with most of what you said, but this idea of LAV-capable airlift is something that keeps coming up in discussions like this, in the media, here, and elsewhere - and I always shake my head. Canada will NEVER afford the number of long-range aircraft capable of carrying LAV-IIIs in any quantity large enough to make a difference. Or in other words, a C-17 is something like $350 million Canadian each - and (correct me if I'm wrong) they can only carry 2 LAVs apiece. The CF may very well buy 4 or 5 of these aircraft - I hope so - but to pin our hopes on them to carry LAVs around is unrealistic, unless the CF intends to deploy future tours in platoon or at most company strength.
> 
> If we want to both stay relevant AND retain a mostly mechanized land force, then the most important thing we need is fast sealift. Three or four large RO-RO vessels will carry a brigade; you would need thousands of C-17 sorties by hundreds of aircraft over a period of weeks to do the same thing. Airlift is great for getting light forces around, for putting small intervention forces in place quickly, and most importantly, for supplying forces already in place, but for larger-scale deployments of mechanized forces sealift is far more economical.




A_majoor and Guardian:

Yes, you guys are right. The budget factor is a HUGE weight that has to be considered when discussing any defence procurements (Even if we are just a bunch of army guys ranting about what we want for Christmas   ;D).   And true, purchasing RO-ROs instead of say X6 350 million dollar aircraft does make more economical sense.

But the reason I stressed air transport capabilities along with Rapid Reaction forces such as the Airborne was because many of the so called 'failed states' we would potentially intervene on are land-locked. Afghanistan, Rwanda, parts of the former Yugoslavia, Darfur, don't have access to seaports and therefore any invasion force would have to be flown in. 

As pointed out by another poster to this forum, many future missions will probably take place in Africa or the Middle East. Not too many of those surronding countries are willing to open up their borders and allow troops and equipment to pass from their ports to the borders of the 'failed state'. The most poignant example I can think of is the War in Iraq. In the months leading up to the war in 2003 the possibility of a northern front were dashed by Turkey refusing to allow American troops to passs through its territory to Iraq. Even after an apparent bribe of $10 billion in economic 'aid' did not sway the opinion of the Turks. Thus, the plan for a northern front was dashed and the entire 3rd Infantry Division (I think it was this one) was forced to travel all the way to Kuwait via ship.      

If we keep the forces 'light' than air transport becomes a strategical asset. Besides, most of the combatants in the War in Iraq (let alone most combat theatres you reg force guys are deployed to) were gunman armed with machine guns and RPGs. Any enemy tanks that were on the ground were effectively taken out by air power. Is it me or is armour now just an extra security blanket?

Ok now that I have made enemies of all the armour guys on this site (I still highly respect you guys   ;D) does anyone see validity to my arguments?


----------



## Allen (21 Apr 2005)

You seem to think I am a Liberal supporter...not true.   Nor am I so cynical as to believe all elected officials are evil. I am just saying that the Conservative and Liberal parties are more similar than many people believe, and in the event of a Conservative victory, people should brace themselves for more compromise and slow progress regarding defence issues. Not the massive turnaround they are trumpeting.

In fact I will vote Conservative in the next election, because I am clinging to the last vestiges of hope that they can clean up the government and make it more efficient. However, since I live in the riding of Parkdale-High Park, that vote will merely be symbolically defiant.

On the other issue, since the paper touts rapid-reaction forces, dedicated strategic airlift is absolutely necessary. About half a dozen planes to quickly fly a light vanguard force to a hotspot. Ships to move a battle group to an already established mission.


----------



## Kal (21 Apr 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ah!   That would be a big yes and a NO.   They were a Quick Reaction Force for Canadian Sovereignty missions, not necessarily for foreign operations.   They were capable to be deployed, but were seldom sent outside of Canada.   They were in Cyprus for the War, in 1974, between the Greeks and Turks, but didn't deploy again outside of Canada until Somalia.



     What combat operation/s, between '74 and 92' in which a rapid reaction force was required by Canada, a unit other than the Airborne was deployed?  Also, what unit/s would have been deployed foremost if a rapid reaction force was required for foreign combat operations?  



			
				Allen said:
			
		

> I am just saying that the Conservative and Liberal parties are more similar than many people believe, and in the event of a Conservative victory, people should brace themselves for more compromise and slow progress regarding defence issues. Not the massive turnaround they are trumpeting.



     How do you come to this conclusion?


----------



## pbi (21 Apr 2005)

What will be interesting now will be to see (assuming we actually get the resources and political support,) if the CDS can smash the service ricebowls and finally turn the mistake of Unification into true Jointness. As well, I wonder how many people serving will be ready and willing to work for change, and how many will just stand on the professional sidewalk, smirking cynically and hoping it will all fail like grand schemes before it.. Years of disappointment, betrayal and frustration can take a deadly toll on the ability of people in an organization to get behind something worthwhile. I hope we can rise to the occasion. I see better intentions and ideas being expressed , by Govt, CDS and CLS now than I have seen in 30 years of service: I say we should give it a fair chance and seize on the opportunity to pull ourselves out of the mudhole.

Cheers.


----------



## Allen (21 Apr 2005)

> How do you come to this conclusion?



Both the Cons & the Libs are trying to move to the political centre to seem moderate. Look at the many areas Harper has muted his former stance on certain issues. Also, his reponse to the last budget was grudging agreement with the defence and tax areas. Basically he said "the Liberals used our ideas", not "this is inadequate and unachievable".

Plus any overhaul of the military will be slowed by creaking beaurocratic machinery at DND no matter what party is in power.


----------



## Kal (21 Apr 2005)

I'm wondering though, if Harper has changed his mind on certain issues that he doesn't voice or if he's not revealing what he truly feels about it.  I'm not sure if his "grudging argeement" was due wholely to the fact that of his own ideas being used, but maybe to wait off on an election after much damaging testimony in the courts.  Could have said; 'Hey, let's go along with them now, rather than trying to win a minority, wait a few months then most likely win a minority, perhaps maybe even a majority.'


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Apr 2005)

As I mentioned in Military Current Affairs and News/Canada revamps foreign policy, I am still rereading and digesting the IPS - which includes the defence issues - and I will comment later but I cannot resists commenting on the commentators, especially not MGen (Ret'd) Lew MacKenzie who weighed in on the IPS in today's _Globe and Mail_ at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050421.wxcodefe21/BNStory/specialComment/  I have highlighted points with which I agree in yellow and I have highlighted a couple in pink upon which I wish to comment.



> Mission: Remaking the military
> Canada must act decisively on the new defence paper. Our security depends on it
> 
> By LEWIS MACKENZIE
> ...



_ The command structure needed to respond quickly to any and all threats will be simplified from coast to coast. Personnel from the navy, army and air force will find themselves serving cheek by jowl in the same headquarters in the pursuit of operational synergies._  While I welcome a simplified _joint_ command structure I will wait and see if a new _Canada Command_ actually fills the bill.  C2 has, ever since 1919, been one of the Canadian military's weak points; we have tended towards empire building, in peace and war.  Good, sometimes great Canadian sailors, soldiers and aviators have laboured under too many indifferent (at best) commanders who _controlled_ through too many, too large, too complex and over-ranked headquarters.  I have seen little, over the past 50 years, to persuade me that we have, suddenly, seen the error of our ways.  We appear to love HQs - the more, the bigger and the less necessary the merrier.

_The second formation, on 10 days' notice to deploy, will be the Standing Contingency Task Force, made up of designated navy, army, air force and special operations personnel. Overseeing and commanding these formations will be a national command structure with operational efficiency as its first priority._  This is a welcome development but I, personally, am concerned that:

"¢	First - we need, at the very least, two of them, backed up by four or five times as many people _in reserve_; and

"¢	Second - keeping units and formations at a high (and 10 days' notice is bloody high) state of headiness for sustained periods is hideously expensive.  I hope we, the country, will agree to develop and then _*sustain*_ that capability.

_I'm also concerned that the esprit de corps that exists in formed regiments will be difficult to foster if the new special forces are based largely on temporary organizational structures. U.S. experience in Iraq confirms that homogeneous formed units with regimental spirit and élan are superior to those created for the event._  Agreed, 100%.  In addition to men and money we need a new, national, top-to-bottom _Agenda of Respect_ for the military and its _institutions_ and for the men and women in it.  Many of us, here on army.ca, have been talking around and about this over the past many months.  When I have a few free hours I intend to put some thoughts on 'paper.'


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (21 Apr 2005)

Allen said:
			
		

> You seem to think I am a Liberal supporter...not true.


You just seem to be cover all of their spin-doctor's talking points.



> Nor am I so cynical as to believe all elected officials are evil. I am just saying that the Conservative and Liberal parties are more similar than many people believe,


how about "have been led to believe by the Liberal propaganda machine" (see "hidden agenda on healthcare, Stephen Harper")



> and in the event of a Conservative victory, people should brace themselves for more compromise and slow progress regarding defence issues. Not the massive turnaround they are trumpeting.


Who is trumpeting?  AFAIK, their policy is something along the lines of "invest in the military and provide quality equipment"



> In fact I will vote Conservative in the next election,


Good!



> because I am clinging to the last vestiges of hope that they can clean up the government and make it more efficient.


Then why post "if you vote for the Conservatives and they fail to meet your expectations, you'll be disappointed"?


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Apr 2005)

I'm still commenting on the comment â â€œ my own critique will come later.  Here is another comment from today's _Globe and Mail_ at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050421.wxcoforn21/BNStory/specialComment/

I agree only with the main thrust â â€œ highlighted, not the details, but:



> Our hearts are bigger than this
> Paul Martin should make poverty reduction the cornerstone of our foreign policy
> 
> By GERRY BARR
> ...



I made some concrete proposals re: aid in a PDF document down below, in Politics, at:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/17947/post-182791.html#msg182791 

Aid falls into one of two categories, both valid and valuable uses of our, taxpayers' money:

1.	Bribes for, very often, _leaders_ of corrupt _kleptocracies_.  We get something â â€œ usually political support â â€œ in exchange for our bribes; it is, sometimes, often enough, money well spent; and

2.	Do-gooding which is, all too often, especially when CIDA is involved, wasted effort.  There are good, efficient and effective do gooders out there, in the private sector, amongst the NGOs.  The overpaid, desk-bound, bureaucratic do-gooders in CIDA are, broadly and generally, inept.

I believe we should over a brief period, increase our aid budget by 0.005% of GDP (about $50 million this year), year after year after year until it reaches 0.0755 of GDP before, say, 2015.

I believe that aid should be split about 50/50: direct, government-to-government, and indirect, Canadian NGOs to projects and people in need.  We should cut off the worst-of-the-worst in terms of corruption and human rights abuses â â€œ in others words precious little government-to-government aid to the poor, starving, AIDS ridden African regimes.  The people in those poor starving countries may, indeed should get non-governmental aid from the NGOs, etc.

We should, in other words, buy the support we want and need and help the poor, we should just be honest about it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Apr 2005)

Here is an excellent article by Prof. David Bercuson (U Calgary) in today's _National Post_.



> Our military needs two masters
> 
> David J. Bercuson
> National Post
> ...



Prof. Bercuson, unlike Paul Martin and Bill Graham (and most admirals and generals) is an expert in defence _policy_.

Elsewhere there are discussions about defence procurement and one contributor suggests looking at the Australian model which is a separate arm of the Defence Department today but which will, in 70 days, become an arms length organization - see: http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/index.cfm  This will help the Australians to add some _market discipline_ (the very best kind) to procurement decisions so that they will have a cycle: advice from the admirals and experts, policy by the politicians, plans by the bureaucrats, requirements from the generals, resources from the politicians and hardware, finally, from the arms length, _apolitical_ procurers.

It would be hard to duplicate the American executive/legislative split in our _Westminster_ style parliament - without surrendering many important features of _responsible_ (rather than American _representative_) government.  Some reforms - including establishing a separate, arms length, procurement agency and strengthening the PCO's foreign/defence/security/intelligence staff *at the expense of the power of the PMO*.


----------



## McG (25 Apr 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> > The rest of the CF's problems aside, this light force would be a positive step to our future.
> 
> 
> It certainly would, IF we had something to build on. It seems to me that we're trying to build a third story onto a house where the foundation is falling apart. Basement don't stay up, the whole house comes down.


I think the Defence Policy is addressing the "basement" as well as the "third floor."


----------



## Infanteer (25 Apr 2005)

I do agree with some of Paracowboy's sentiments.  While it is interesting to see what General Hillier is pushing through some high-profile expeditionary capabilities, there are some basics that I would like to see addressed, such as:

- Real issues in the overall fitness of our Army (both in Physical fitness and mental preparedness):  We have uniforms made in obscene sizes and soldiers complaining about 16 hour work days - we need to increase the intensity of training across the board to remedy this, is this being addressed?

- A Reserve system that is outdated and inefficient.  We need to decide what we are going to do with the Army Reserves and sort out ways to stabilize manning and raise standards (ie: no sunny-day soldiers).

- Flimsy training budgets: An LPD is nice, but will we have soldiers barreling out of them who have only been to the range once or twice a year?  Many soldiers from 3 PPCLI commented on the excellent training opportunity with the USMC and lament that we do not have the same training here.  Are we going to address this, or are all the eggs being put into a CMTC basket?

Just a few issues we've been discussing in the last little while that immediately come to mind - we could probably identify a few more real quickly.  No point shining up the tip of the spear if the shaft is brittle and weak.

Infanteer


----------



## paracowboy (25 Apr 2005)

> I think the Defence Policy is addressing the "basement" as well as the "third floor."


I think we're talkin' a good game. It sounds great. Looks groovy on paper. But I don't think they've truly grasped the realities of the situation. They're trying to create new units before they repair the problems already here. The money that's promised us isn't even sufficient to address the current shortfalls. And we still ahve that "Peacekeeper" albatross hanging around our neck.
I'm hoping, desperately, things are going to work, but I've been kicked in the sack too often. We're relying on the promise of people who have no honour and who have lied to us constantly in the past. We have some fresh blood trying to make changes, but they're going to have to try to bring about this change with the same mandarins who have played the part of boot-lick for too long still clogging up the artieries. That's a LOT of inertia to overcome. 
I pray things are going to get better. I'm willing to do my part. But...

Maybe I'm just too cynical and jaded. But I grow more and more so every time this happens. I get my hopes up, then I get a boot in the teeth. Kiwi polish doesn't taste very good, and it's hell to floss away. It feels, too often, that Canadians simply don't care about us or their Law Enforcement personnel. Do you think a sheepdog ever gets tired of his flock turning on him?


----------



## McG (26 Apr 2005)

Not sure what to make of the Conservative take on this:


> *Fate of Defence overhaul uncertain under Tories*
> But Conservative MPs suggest Harper government would likely spend even more
> a journalist
> Ottawa
> ...


----------



## civvy3840 (26 Apr 2005)

That's interesting... wonder what will happen to Hillier if the Conservatives take over?


----------



## Sub_Guy (26 Apr 2005)

I wouldn't worry about the conservatives, if anything they will give us more.  I certainly hope that the scare tactics that the liberals will throw at us during the next election don't suck too many people


----------



## civvy3840 (26 Apr 2005)

Well if they will give us more then lets hope they win the up coming election.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Apr 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> Not sure what to make of the Conservative take on this:



I think we should take the Conservative statement at face value.

Many Canadians, moderately well informed and non-Conservative Canadians too, have concerns about the _combination_ of the budget announcement and the Policy Statement.

The budget's $12.7 Billion came with some strings attached, which is a government's right, but without benefit of a current White Paper.  Now we have a Policy Statement, which does not have enough detail to be a White paper, after we heard various vast policy type plans announced by the new CDS.  The _*process*_ is muddled, to say the least.

Someone, preferably Ken Calder, the Assistant Deputy Minister for Policy, should be crafting a White Paper to be delivered by whichever band of rogues and thieves forms the next government.  Until then there is no money to implement many (any?) of the CDS' vast plans, but some shouldn't cost too much.

Meanwhile soldiers (sailors and aviators, too) better continue doing more and more with less and less because inflation is eating away at the _steady state_ which will obtain for a few years, at least, under the Liberal plan.

I think Rick Hillier's job is safe with anyone except the NDP (who would want to parachute Maude Barlow in as CDS).


----------



## civvy3840 (26 Apr 2005)

What are the od's of the NDP winning the election though. It's mostly between the Conservatives and the Liberals right?


----------



## Infanteer (26 Apr 2005)

More on Paracowboy's "talking a good game":

- Our Recruiting system is so systemically scrambled up that it takes on average 6 months to get guys through the door.  The much touted 5,000 troops - how are they going to be put through our current system, are the 3 Doctors we allow access to med files going to suddenly deal with the influx of thousands of more files?  

-  Much of the problem above also lies in a disjoint with the training system.  Say they finally do get processed and show some interest in sticking around.  Are we going to have a 5,000 man PAT Brigade to hold them while they hang out at the bottlenecks in the training system?

- Talk of new kit is real nice, but our procurement system is so convoluted that I have a feeling it will drag any plans into the mud.  We've recently had discussions on this on another thread, so I know the issue is still relevent.

Just a few more issues.  But they are there: training, recruiting, procurement, physical fitness, mental preparedness, archaic reserve system, etc, etc.  Some of things are in-house; they need to be dealt with by the CF.  Some of these require a joint effort between the CF and the DND/Government-at-Large to fix.  But even though I'm an optimist, I can't help agreeing with Paracowboy that these systemic faults need to be addressed before or during the effort to build SOC units, expeditionary forces, etc, etc.

I really don't see how having a bigger military that is plagued by the same systemic problems is going to ameliorate much.


----------



## McG (26 Apr 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> -   Much of the problem above also lies in a disjoint with the training system.   Say they finally do get processed and show some interest in sticking around.   Are we going to have a 5,000 man PAT Brigade to hold them while they hang out at the bottlenecks in the training system?


The Army and CF are not oblivious to this.  The army has committed to establishing a strategic reserve every year.  However, it can be committed to any number of tasks, and SR06 may find itself with the task of individual trg.  This would mean 2 VP and its attached elements become a giant school to pump new recruits through BMQ, SQ, and possibly even MOC trg.


----------



## pbi (4 Sep 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> The Army and CF are not oblivious to this.   The army has committed to establishing a strategic reserve every year.   However, it can be committed to any number of tasks, and SR06 may find itself with the task of individual trg.   This would mean 2 VP and its attached elements become a giant school to pump new recruits through BMQ, SQ, and possibly even MOC trg.



 MCG: This would IMHO not be a very likely role for the reserve or "Surge" TF. It is the Army's back-pocket item to deal with the unforseen mission or the urgent need to reinforce an existing mission. It is more likely (but not much easier, given our instructor situation...) that any surge of people to the training system would happen by means of "raiding" LFAs that are outside the High Readiness point on the cycle. The problem with that (as we all know too well...) is that it is those same Offrs/NCOs who are needed for dozens of other tasks in order to make the other parts of the Army Managed Readiness cycle work, so that units can GET to High Readiness in the first place. IMHO rebuilding our junior leadership cadre is ouir most important task. If we can't do that, we won't be able to do much else. As we've already noted, just pouring recruit bodies, money or new gear into a broken training system is like pouring water into a bucket with no bottom.

Cheers


----------



## fatbax (4 Sep 2005)

The biggest question that I have is where are we going to find 1000, let alone 5000, fit people that want to be in the army?  From my perspective, the PT standards that exist will only allow for more unfit and placid people to become members of an already unfit army.    As far as new kit, if you can't carry it, why do you need it!!!! :threat:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Sep 2005)

The biggest question I have is how long a dingleberry like yourself lasts on this forum.

MOD WARNING...add something to the conversation or you will be subtracted from the member count.


----------



## fatbax (25 Sep 2005)

I would guess that an apology would be in line here if i didn't see people during PT and on EX struggling with the current kit lists that units put out. :'(  If there are 1k or 5k people outthere then I say sign them up.  If, and I see it as a LARGE but not impossible if, we can get a more mobile and flexible army out of it then its good.  If it is just another plan that will never be fully realized then what is the use of forcing the issue. hug and kisses "dingleberry" :dontpanic:


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Feb 2006)

This is an opinion piece from today’s _Globe and Mail_ by Gordon Smith, University of Victoria and, formerly, deputy minister of foreign affairs in Ottawa.  It is reproduced under the fair dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060203.wxcoforeign03/BNStory/specialComment/


> Mr. Harper, some advice on foreign affairs
> 
> BY GORDON SMITH
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Feb 2006)

Below (or above, depending on how you have decided to view posts) is an opinion piece by former deputy minister of foreign affairs Gordon Smith.  Mr. Smith is a wise man, a distinguished public servant and scholar; Mr. Harper would do well to consider his advice, but: Mr. Smith is also wrong on a couple, but only a couple, of points.

He urges Harper _” to reverse the decision to split the departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.”_  That’s muddle-headed.  Economics should trump foreign policy; we are a trading nation; our trade department should be merged with our industry department into a _super ministry_ which will –

•	Rival Finance in its political power and influence and, therefore attract the _best and brightest_ in Ottawa; and

•	Have, and use, its own parallel _foreign service_.

I am probably repeating myself (from a discussion of intelligence services, I think) but collectivization didn’t work for farms in Russia and it doesn’t work for policy in Ottawa (or Washington) either.  A little good, old fashioned _competition_, even within government always does more good than harm – of course there will be problems, diplomats and officials will trip over one another, now and again, but, overall, the foreign affairs department is a lousy place to develop and implement trade policy.

He also says, _” With respect to Canada-U.S. relations, the key is never to lose sight of national interests. The U.S. certainly won't. Right now, it is preoccupied by its security and the war on terrorism … Canada can help achieve a broader global understanding of the various challenges and responses to security needs.”_  Maybe I’m missing something but insofar as we are dealing with  Canada-U.S. relations then we must appreciate and deal with the *fact* that the US _”is preoccupied by its security”_.  We can blather on about small arms treaties until we are blue in face; the Americans are (relatively) unconcerned about foreign folks in dusty, dirty, far-off lands killing _each other_ with AK-47s.  They are ‘preoccupied’ with people who want to, plan to and are killing Americans.  If we want to trade ‘freely’ (unencumbered by onerous security restrictions) with our best friend and closest neighbour then we had better worry a lot more about American preoccupations with security and a lot less about other foreign folks killing one another.

For the rest, I agree:

•	Put Canada’s national interests first, always, without fail.  There is an unwritten implication here: we must define (and maybe debate) our national interests – the _Globe and Mail_ and _National Post_ have no more claim to know the national interest than do the striped-pants, weak kneed pissants in foreign affairs.  The Middle East, proper, may not be one of Canada’s _central_ issues except in so far as it influences Central Asia where we are likely to invest treasure and troops for a generation;

•	Deal with the Americans firmly, fairly, honestly and, above all and in sharp contrast to the Chrétien and Martin governments, professionally;

•	Get out of Kyoto – as fast as we can.  It is, always was, a European con-game, and attempt to redress, by international regulation, Europe’s decline vis-à-vis the USA; and

•	Redesign and re-equip the military to promote and protect our national interests anywhere in the world, whenever needed.  

Edit: format


----------

