# PM's New Bde of Peacekeepers (5,000 new soldiers), could it be a SOC Light Force?



## bossi

Grit defence plan out of reach: experts
'They're going to have a real problem with personnel,' army colonel says
  
Chris Wattie 
National Post 
Tuesday, June 15, 2004

TORONTO - Liberal promises on defence will not only cost more than $8 billion and take more than a decade to fulfil, but Armed Forces staff have no idea how they will raise, equip and pay for 5,000 new troops.

While the Liberals have criticized Conservative campaign pledges to spend billions on the military, experts said their own promise to add a full brigade to the army will be almost as expensive and likely more difficult to fulfil, especially with no guarantee of additional funds for the hard-pressed defence budget.

"It came as a bit of a surprise, probably, to the guys in the Department of National Defence," said Col. Howard Marsh, a former senior army staff officer. "But I'm sure the planners are going to make the Liberals' eyes water once they start doing the numbers up on this."

Prime Minister Paul Martin promised last week to add the 5,000-strong new brigade to the Forces, along with another 3,000 part-time soldiers for the army reserves. The promises, which came a week after the Tories unveiled their ambitious defence policy, also promised to emphasize the military's peacekeeping role.

The Conservatives have pledged an additional $5.5 billion over five years for the defence budget, another 27,000 troops and new transport aircraft and hybrid carriers -- ships that could act as helicopter carriers and troop transports.

Col. Marsh said the idea of a new brigade was a good one, but said it will take eight years of spending just to bring the overworked and understrength army up to a level at which the new unit could be formed -- preparations he estimated would cost about $800 million a year.

"It's one of those promises you can make and you don't have to write any cheques for another seven or eight years," he said. "It will take that long just to get up to the starting point ... before you can start thinking about adding another 5,000 people."

The Liberal promise of additional reservists, for example, was first made in 2000. So far, the army has managed to add only 750 part-time soldiers.

The Forces currently has just more than 53,000 regular force soldiers, sailors and airmen on strength, well short of its authorized total of 60,000. Attempts to recruit more troops have all but overwhelmed the military's training system, said Col. Marsh, and senior staff officers expect it will take until 2012 to bring the Forces to full strength.

"To expand to add another 5,000 trained officers, NCOs and men will take a long, long time," he said. "The units wouldn't be formed until 2015 ... and it will take longer to fill the ranks.

"Then you've got to equip them ... you've got to start putting about $800 million a year in the budget, starting this year, for seven or eight years before you even get started."

Col. Marsh said the new brigade will need about 350 armoured vehicles, including LAV III infantry carriers, Coyote reconnaissance vehicles, and those for combat engineers, artillery and unit headquarters, and another 900 trucks and other vehicles.

Support troops will also be needed, adding to the cost and the additional soldiers. "I don't think the prime minister realizes that to give the army a brigade of 5,000 you need another 3,500 people to support them," said Col. Marsh. "They're going to have a real problem with personnel."

A full army brigade will also need a new base, which Col. Marsh estimates will cost almost $2 billion, and equipment, including weapons and vehicles. "Unless the economy produces a surplus, these things aren't going to happen."

Sean Maloney, a professor at Royal Military College, said the Liberal defence platform appears to have been poorly thought out and hastily drawn up, largely in response to the Tory announcement.

He said the Liberal policy does not address the shortage of air and sea transport, which would leave the Forces with no way to get the proposed new brigade to overseas missions. "They haven't solved that at all," Mr. Maloney said. "It doesn't reflect serious defence policy."

Mr. Maloney said the reliance on the Forces' peacekeeping and "peace support" abilities reflects outdated thinking. "They're using the term 'peace' at every turn," he said.

"It's Cold War thinking ... the great Canadian peacekeeping myth is just that: a myth.

"Canada has never relied on peacekeeping to meet all its defence needs and never will."

Col. Marsh said it is possible a Liberal government may never have to honour the promises, if a long-awaited defence policy review expected this fall concludes a new brigade is not needed.

"Theoretically, he could make this announcement during the election campaign, then turn around" after the defence and foreign policy review is done and say, "it isn't needed."


----------



## tabernac

Its obviously just a one-up-man-ship competition with the Tories. I wonder who will try to draw the larger number... *cough* Liberals *cough*


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

> The Liberal promise of additional reservists, for example, was first made in 2000. So far, the army has managed to add only 750 part-time soldiers.
> 
> ....
> 
> Col. Marsh said it is possible a Liberal government may never have to honour the promises, if a long-awaited defence policy review expected this fall concludes a new brigade is not needed.



I think we can probably all draw the same conclusions from just those two sentences....





CB.


----------



## Gayson

I'm sick of the liberals.

Anyone watch the debate the other night? Almost every single time martin was asked a question he would just avoid it and talk about something else.  Sort of like how he is avoiding the problems with the CF with this.


----------



## Slim

The Liberals are NOT getting my vote!


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I'm so sick of the Liberals, I've actually been pretty activist since the election call.

So far I've converted:
A UWO professor
My barber
Four of my staff

The one thing I've found interesting is that I've been challenging people on WHY they
are voting Liberal, and invariably it's because they don't know any better.   They don't
read newspapers.   They don't watch news.   They do watch American Idol.

In short, as soon as you start highlighting the Liberal Record they shift either in one
direction or the other.   If they're pro-military, pro-tax cut then they shift Conservative.

If they're more "mommy society" or have strong feelings regarding abortion or gay rights
then they shift to the NDP.

Just an observation....I don't know if anyone else has seen this or not....

Cheers,




Matthew.


----------



## scm77

J. Gayson said:
			
		

> I'm sick of the liberals.
> 
> Anyone watch the debate the other night? Almost every single time martin was asked a question he would just avoid it and talk about something else.  Sort of like how he is avoiding the problems with the CF with this.



I saw that.  Went a little something like this.

Harper: Where is the money from the sponsorship scandal, and why is the gun registry 1 billion dollars over budget?

Martin: What's important is healthcare, not military spending.  I think women should have the right to choose.

Total BS.

Whenever he's asked about the military he just says that we're awaiting the review.  That just gives him an excuse to put it off until after the elections so he can cut the budget or not increase it later.


----------



## Long in the tooth

Harper is by far the only potential friend the CF have.   Gilles Duceppe's logic (as expected) goes like this - no capability until a requirement review is done, therefore no forces in place means no forces available to commit.   Not far from the liberals.   Smilin' Jack Layton never met a tax or social issue he didn't like which means the CF is so far on the back burner it's in the freezer.
Again, I'd like to point out that the resources we have allow us no economies of scale as each course is taken through on a case by case basis.   We barely have the size to maintain current ops and train new soldiers, let alone expand in size.   A more modest goal for all three services is simply to bring units up to strength so that all our ships can sail and all our battalions have four companies.   Rebuilding a fourth brigade at this point is just a pipe dream.
I'll throw out an option that I've discussed before - run all basic training locally, year round, mainly by the reserves with over sight by appropriate standards.   It costs far too much to enrol a Reg F soldier, ship them to St Jean and then fail or decide the CF isn't for them.   This should serve as a purpose for the reserves and allow RegF members greater flexibility as they won't be doing a tour then training recruits and undergoing training themselves.   Any thoughts on this?


----------



## McG

Chris Wattie said:
			
		

> Support troops will also be needed, adding to the cost and the additional soldiers. "I don't think the prime minister realizes that to give the army a brigade of 5,000 you need another 3,500 people to support them," said Col. Marsh. "They're going to have a real problem with personnel."


Re-rolling 4 ESR back into 4 CER would reduce some of the new man-power requirements that a new brigade would produce.



			
				Chris Wattie said:
			
		

> A full army brigade will also need a new base, which Col. Marsh estimates will cost almost $2 billion, and equipment, including weapons and vehicles. "Unless the economy produces a surplus, these things aren't going to happen."


Move 2 RCR to Petawawa & Gagetown could be home to a new brigade.   Move 2 PPCLI to Edmonton (or Wainwright) and Shilo could become the home of a new brigade.


----------



## R031button

Alternativly, the liberals could just have all the 3rd battalions demobalized and then build our army around four two battalion brigades, using hte extras to fill up slots. The real pain would come from trying to get the vechicles and support services, as I don't imagine combat support recruits are easy to come by.


----------



## willy

> Alternativly, the liberals could just have all the 3rd battalions demobalized and then build our army around four two battalion brigades



The light battalions aren't just mech battalions minus the rides, and you can't just take them away like that.  They are too important to just disband.  Also, I doubt that all of the guys in those battalions would appreciate being summarily rebadged into a new regiment in a new brigade.

Also, you're missing the point, which is that if a new brigade were to be created, it would be an action intended to increase the CF's capabilities, not decrease them.  Having four half assed brigades is no solution at all.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

My bet is that if a new brigade is indeed created (which I'm already doubtful of), the 3rd battalion of each regiment will be transferred into this new brigade.  The mech brigades will probably be reduced to 2 infantry battalions and this new brigade will be a light brigade and if any mech. assets are included they will probably be Mine Resistant Vehicles (ie. Mamba/Cougar-Tempest/Dingo, etc.) rather than LAV III APCs.


----------



## willy

Seriously, am I missing something here?  Was there any sort of a report or news story that suggested that this was actually a serious proposal?  I never heard of it, and I don't think it makes any sense at all, not only for the reasons I already stated, but because of the fact that if things were done that way, then there would not, in fact, be any increase in the number of soldiers at all, which I thought was supposed to be the point of this whole thing.  9 reg force bns/3 bdes is the same as 9 reg force bns/4 bdes, really.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

My rationale behind the new brigade is based on Liberal defence policy.  They can say that they created a new brigade which is entirely focused on peace support operations, but in reality they've done nothing to seriously increase the capabilities of the CFs.  The 3 mech brigades would probably be told that their 3rd infantry battalion will be re-established in the near future, and that in the interim, the reserves would be used to form the 3rd battalion in case of war.  Well the "interim" would probably become the "longterim" and the end result is that the forces become top heavier with another brigade headquarters element.

In some ways if this were the case it wouldn't be that bad IF the reg. force units were up to full strength and the reserves brought into a true "Total Force" model where they'd have access to the proper equipment necessary to fulfill the tasking of providing the 3rd infantry battalion in each mech. brigade.

What desperately needs to be fixed is the current sytem of robbing Peter to pay Paul ie. 3 PPCLI scouring 1st and 2nd Battalion in order to put together a full-strength battlegroup, etc.


----------



## willy

Well then, I think we can both agree that it isn't a good idea.  This is all just speculation at this point though, so I think we might as well just watch and shoot.  I have serious doubts that we're going to be able to pull another full bde out of our asses, but until it comes to someone actually trying to pull a stunt like this, I'm not going to get worked up over it.


----------



## Kirkhill

Good Idea or Bad Idea I concur with Matt.

When I look at some of the things posted on this site and elsewhere I see the following.

"6 maybe 7 Recce squadrons in the future"

"Losing all our LAVs from 2 RCR except for enough to carry a company or so"

"MBTs and M109s transferring to 1 CBG"

"Strathcona's to hold 2 MBT squadrons UNTIL MGS comes on line"

Two Brigades each composed of two reinforced light infantry battle groups comprising a 3 company light battalion with about 20-30 LAVs on strength along with a Recce Squadron, some DFS and Arty capability.  (CBGs 2 and 5)

One Brigade that somebody in the Brass is trying hard to maintain as a high intensity capability with 2 LAV battalions, 2 MBT squadrons, a Recce squadron and a 155mm arty regiment.  Battle likely to be lost and this "brigade will form up like the others. (1 CBG)  The hope could be that government policy will change between now and then.

One Brigade (PMs Peacekeepers Inc.) with one maybe two recce squadrons, a light arty capability and 3 light battalions with MPVs and trucks, maybe another 20-30 LAVs.

Note - in interest of demonstrating PM is different to JC and to improve morale "cheaply" PM will reactivate an airborne capability in the PMPKI.  Helicopters and Aircraft to follow at a later date ... start holding your breath now.

On second thougt he might actually buy some aircraft.  Response to Harper in the debate "We don't need Cold War aircraft carriers we need aircraft fro rapid mobility".

Course the election is over now  ...... no it isn't this is only a ceasefire..... the election continues and will continue until the next voting day.

Dam I'm confused and perturbed.

No Cheers today lads.


----------



## Limpy

A new brigade? To sum it up look what just got back into power. Not going to happen soon.


----------



## Kirkhill

Limpy

Look what got back in power.  

New election coming.  Need to shore up some right wing votes on the cheap? Create a new Brigade HQ (I understand NDHQ has a surplus of staff personnel) and reassign some understrength battalions for exercise purposes (1 Canadian Div out of Kingston as the Model - all staff, no troops).

Didn't say this was going to be a good solution for the soldiery.  Great solution for the politicos, especially if he reamalgamates those characters in the Maroon as his "lead" battalion.  PS don't expect a training budget.


----------



## Limpy

Not that I believe it couldn't happen ( I'd love to see a new brigade) it would take time to do this. But your right about the NDHQ staff surplus, seems that the CF is top heavy.


----------



## Yard Ape

We need a fourth brigade to fix ATOF.
Before we get a fourht brigade, we need to fix the brigades we have.  They all need TUA, they all need MGS (if not real tanks), they all need 4 rifle companies in each battalion.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

The man and equipment shortage is so bad that in 2VP a mechanized BN we now have 2 LAV coy's and 1 light coy.  How the hell is that suppossed to work?


----------



## Brad Sallows

Balloon-tired skateboards and tow ropes?


----------



## Danjanou

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Balloon-tired skateboards and tow ropes?



Shhh not to loud. Some Col in NDHQ might hear you and form a multi million dollar committee into the feasibility of........too late it's up and running ;D


----------



## Yard Ape

CFL said:
			
		

> The man and equipment shortage is so bad that in 2VP a mechanized BN we now have 2 LAV coy's and 1 light coy.   How the heck is that suppossed to work?


It is as things are explained in the fleet managment thread.  Your light company & one of your mechanized companies should be sharing vehicles.

Don't you love the new direction we are taking in the Army?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Just something else to add to my CF questionnaire.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

You should photo-copy it and have everyone on the forum send in one.{since it is anonymous] :


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Well I could give you the email provide.  hehehe


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

Discussion about the new multifunctional, 27,000 tonne carrier the Italians have just launched.

Same size as JSS, the San Antonios, the Spanish Izar BPE and the Australian requirement.

Warmongers all.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Does not fulfill the AOR requirement the navy desperately needs to be revamped.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Do I need to remind you about the last desgin we bought off the Italians (LSVW).


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The Italians make some nice warships though.


----------



## Kirkhill

You are right on both counts Ex-Dragoon.  Still it would be nice to add one to the fleet along with the JSSs wouldn't it?  And I know all about the money..... Oh well.

And CFL the LSVW was originally an IVECO design but it was Canadianized - the drive train was modified.

IVECO has put an awful lot of trucks on the road, many in Canada pulling 40 foot trailers commercially.  They are also building the Centauro, most of the Italian APCs and the British Field Car (MLV) adopted to replace the LandRover Fitted For Radio Command Vehicles.

Maybe we would get a different outcome if we just adopted the recommendations of the manufacturer (on any equipment) rather than trying to re-engineer kit when our staff has only a limited idea of the compromises necessary in design.

Buy off the shelf.  Repeat the buy if it works.  Discard and buy another if it doesn't.  If it really works well get a license and build lots in Canada.

Procurement modified.  Forces equipped.  Money Saved.  Jobs Created.  Technology Transferred.  Expertise Gained.  

Just a thought.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Did it occur to anyone to look at this as "be careful what you wish for"?

Imagine a brigade constituted and trained purely for peacekeeping.  Imagine its visibility, importance, and priority for funding from a political and civilian perspective.  Consider the current balance of requirements and resources.  Now imagine the funding priority of the "fighting" formations.  What do you see as the end state?


----------



## Yard Ape

The ideal structure for a "peacekeeping" brigade would be the same ideal structure for our other brigades.  Primarily mech infantry with advanced Command, Control, Communication, Sensing, and Information systems (consistent with the RMA) armed with precision weapons, and self-sustaining.  It would be suited for low to high intensity warfare.  It would just be a new 4 CMBG.


----------



## Brad Sallows

You see that, and I see that, but what do you think the politician making the promise and the voters hearing it see?


----------



## Yard Ape

That is for our generals to keep the politicians informed on.  The PAffOs can sell it to the public, and the politicians would love to get behind the message that Canada has 4 brigades fully capable of success through the full spectrum of peace operations (and not just one).

We would also be content in knowing that Canada would have 4 brigades fully capable of success through the full spectrum conflict (which includes peace operations and war).


----------



## bossi

Yup - "be careful what you wish for ..."
(i.e. the CF might end up paying for yet another poorly thought-out Liberal campaign promise ...)
PM's brigade for peace imperils navy, air force
Defence's doomsday scenario sees scrapping three destroyers and a quarter of CF-18 jets
  
Mike Blanchfield 
CanWest News Service; With files from Times Colonist 


Saturday, August 21, 2004


OTTAWA -- The Canadian Armed Forces are considering scrapping navy destroyers and air force fighter jets to pay for what they believe was an ill-considered campaign promise by Prime Minister Paul Martin to create a new brigade of 5,000 peacekeepers, the Ottawa Citizen reports.

Senior Defence Department planners presented Defence Minister Bill Graham with a doomsday scenario this week that called for grounding one-quarter of Canada's CF-18 fighter jets and mothballing the navy's three active destroyers.

Senior military officials say they have no choice because Martin has not earmarked new money for the Forces. Without making massive internal cuts, the military has no way of following the prime minister's orders to implement his campaign promise to create a new brigade of 5,000 soldiers devoted specifically to peacekeeping.

The military was caught off-guard by the pledge, which they believe Martin hastily made in the heat of fighting for his political life in June against a Conservative surge in the federal election.

One senior military official, speaking on condition on anonymity, said Forces leaders are worried they "are going to be perceived as being in bed with this cockamamie idea" of creating a new brigade of peacekeepers.

Martin is forcing the military "to come up with outrageous options to satisfy an election promise that came from nowhere," said the official.

Forces officers spoke up, albeit anonymously, because they are disillusioned with Martin, who campaigned for the Liberal leadership last year and went to the polls this year on a platform that called for restoring Canada as a credible player on the world stage, in part by boosting the Forces. They also don't want to be blamed in the future by the Prime Minister's Office -- or the public -- for being the architects of a plan that led to the demise of the navy and air force.

Martin backed away from conducting a broad review of Canada's defence policy, as he promised when he was sworn in as prime minister in December. Graham announced last month that there would be no formal defence policy review, just an "in-house" examination that would have no public consultation.

Defence analysts say Martin's actions show he is not interested in revitalizing the Forces, and that he will be hard-pressed to elevate Canada's stature internationally if he does not have a credible military to use as a foreign-policy tool.

"The government doesn't seem to want defence as an issue in the future," said Alain Pellerin, the executive director of the Conference of Defence Associations, the military's largest lobby group. "It's disappointing to see how it all turned out because there have been so many promises."

Graham is to present Martin with the military's new plan at a cabinet meeting next week in Ottawa.

Defence officials say the Forces are already running a $1-billion annual deficit to pay for current operations. Adding a new brigade would cost $2.5 billion in startup costs, and an additional $400 million to $500 million a year to sustain.

With no additional money, the new brigade has to be financed out of the current $13-billion annual budget.

York University defence analyst Martin Shadwick said the government should conduct full public consultations before contemplating such drastic changes to the military.

The plan to ground 20 of Canada's 80 CF-18 fighter jets will not sit well with the United States, which expects Canada to make a meaningful contribution to North American air defences following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, said Shadwick.

Getting rid of the navy's destroyers would also mean Canada could never again command a multinational naval force, as it has done in the Persian Gulf, he said.

Destroyers are equipped with an extensive communications network capable of playing a "command and control platform" role in a task force, mostly co-ordinating activities for all ships in the group. Esquimalt-based HMCS Algonquin served such a role in 2002 in the Arabian Sea during Operation Apollo.

Lt.-Cmdr. Hubert Genest, spokesman for the navy in Esquimalt, said the decision to scrap destroyers rests solely with government. "We don't have much comment," he said. "As you know, these are political decisions."

In addition to the Algonquin, the Pacific Fleet has another destroyer tied up. HMCS Huron is likely to be decommissioned and sold for scrap, Genest said. Two other destroyers sail out of Halifax.

The Algonquin, now with 30 years service, recently returned to Esquimalt from exercises off Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The warship, which can carry two of the aging Sea King combat helicopters now set to be replaced, underwent a $24-million refit a couple of years ago.

© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2004


----------



## George Wallace

Ah!  Daydreaming of a Brigade being formed in the area of Wellsford, NB, with docks and warehouses built in St John, NB.  ready for fast deployment by rail or sea.....and the reintroduction of a Air Assault Bn and Tac Hel Sqn to Lahr as part of the Multinational NATO Bde in Strasbourg and a forward Air and Supply facility for NATO and UN missions to Eastern Europe, Middle East and Africa.......God how I hate politicians of the Mulroney and Liberal ilk.

GW


----------



## Brad Sallows

Too bad we can't get the Liberals to fulfill all the campaign promises by forcing every department to reach within itself.


----------



## Yard Ape

If the PM is not ready to provide the 5,000 new PYs he promised he should also give up on the brigade he promised.  We need a fourth brigade, but we cannot afford it at the expense of what we have.


----------



## canuck101

Yard Ape 

                      you are right on the money. We  you are talking about a liberal government here.  They want Canadian to think we can do everything everywhere.  they just don't put the money down in investment and time to maintain a well balance armed forces.  the only thing i think we have on our side is that they are in a minority and the Conservatives on there heels.  This would be the ideal time for them to ride the liberals.  Do i hear the liberals saying we don't have enough money it must go to provinces for health care.  I promise you that is what they are going to say to the military.  You must find the money in the department somewhere.

cheers


----------



## DJL

> the only thing i think we have on our side is that they are in a minority and the Conservatives on there heels.



Sadly, I doubt it would mater........IMHO, I can't see the Bloc and/or NDP supporting the Tories on putting the Fiberals feet to the fire when it comes to defence spending  :-\


----------



## Brad Sallows

Sometimes, the plan presented is structured so as to make it deliberately unappealing in the hope a different tack will be taken.

Sometimes, the bluff is called.

It will be interesting if the government follows through and demonstrates once again that among the very few campaign promises they seem to be able to keep are those which can be paid for at the expense of defence.


----------



## Jungle

Yard Ape said:
			
		

> The ideal structure for a "peacekeeping" brigade would be the same ideal structure for our other brigades.   Primarily mech infantry with advanced Command, Control, Communication, Sensing, and Information systems (consistent with the RMA) armed with precision weapons, and self-sustaining.   It would be suited for low to high intensity warfare.   It would just be a new 4 CMBG.


There is probably a way around this... First we activate 3 new Infantry Battalions, to replace the LIBs in the three existing Brigades. Then we create a new Formation (Special Service Force or Brigade, or Special Operations Command, or... ???). Included in this new Formation would be the three LIBs, JTF-2, CPC and support units. The LIBs would be able to develop into Spec-Ops-capable units (similar to US Ranger Batts), as decided by the Army, something that will be impossible as long as they are in the current Bdes. We would then have 9 Batts avail for ongoing ops, plus this formation would be avail for emergencies, surprise or short-term deployments, civilian evac, national QRF etc...
It would be easier to develop a Light/ Special doctrine with those units under a unified Command, and we would achieve the "aim" of creating more units for Peace-support deployments. The rest of the 5000 troops (+/- 2500) could go to the trg system, existing Bdes, and the Navy/ Air Force.


----------



## Slim

Jungle said:
			
		

> (Special Service Force or Brigade, or Special Operations Command, or... ???). Included in this new Formation would be the three LIBs, JTF-2, CPC and support units. The LIBs would be able to develop into Spec-Ops-capable units (similar to US Ranger Batts), as decided by the Army, something that will be impossible as long as they are in the current Bdes.



Excellent post Jungle 

The only thing I have to say is that I hope someone grows a pair of brass ones and tells the government that the term and mind set of Peacekeeping should be removed from the title or vocabulary of the formation. Soldiers are not good peacekeepers unless they train to be warfighters first. 

My 2 cents

Slim


----------



## Kirkhill

While I understand what you mean about Peacekeeping Slim, if Paul is serious about this fourth brigade the first thing he has to do is sell it to the NDP, the Bloc and and that half of his caucus that thoroughly detests the US and anything that smacks of war, killing and dying.

If calling it a Peacekeeping formation is what it takes to get the numbers generated I am for it (with reservations).  We'd just have to trust the Army and the Regiments to instill the necessary mindset and supply the appropriate training.

By the way I like Jungle's way out of the problem. All we would need then are the aeroplanes that Paul told Harper were more useful than Aircraft Carriers.

Cheers, Chris.


----------



## Yard Ape

I think Jungle's proposal is the way to go (in fact I suggested the same thing not so long back: http://army.ca/forums/threads/17810.0.html)  However, I would not put the CPC into this formation (don't need to worry the commander with running a school when LFDTS already has it under control) and I cannot see the CF putting JTF-2 under Army control.


----------



## Jungle

Yard Ape said:
			
		

> However, I would not put the CPC into this formation (don't need to worry the commander with running a school when LFDTS already has it under control) and I cannot see the CF putting JTF-2 under Army control.


Maybe another way around this is to create a "Special Operationss Command". It would be directly under NDHQ, and would include all the units I mentionned previously. The LIBs could be grouped in a Light Bde, and they would be able to develop appropriately into spec-ops capable units; coord would be easier for support of JTF trg/ ops, and CPC pers could also be used in support roles (as in JM support when needed). We could then develop a true "Light" doctrine, without affecting the regular Bdes.


----------



## The_Falcon

So basically what you are saying Jungle is almost going back to the CAR formation circa 70s early 80s (cause they are going to need arty/eng/armour/CS/CSS) with the CPC and JTF2 to round it out it as a highly moblie "Special-Operations" Command/Brigade vice "Airborne", so as not to freak out the public and the politicians.   I like it.


----------



## Danjanou

I like it too. Using the camel's nose under the tent technique we can first have all 3 Lt Bns become Para qualified. Then the same with other Brigade units HQ/Sigs Enginners, Arty, CSS.  Eventually when we've lulled the politicos into a state of unawarness, bring out the laid up colours of the CAR and redesignate the 3 bns as Cdos.

Seriously I do like the idea of a seperate light Brigade and can even stomach calling it a Peace keeping Brigade if that's what it takes to get it funded by the Libs. We know what modern "Peace keeping" involves in regards to training and presuming we an get some senior officers to ensure it becomes and remains a light/airportable/SOF capable formation and not a colledction of social workers with a Cadpat dress code great.

Curious though Jungle are you advocating replacing the 3 Bns in the other Bdes  or going with a 2x Mech Inf Bn 1x Armd Regt org? If we do have a third Bn in the CMBGs, and I think we need them (or at the very least a designated trained and equipped 3rd Militia "roundout" Bn), what would the designation be? Are we going to see 4th PPCLI, 4th RCR and 4th R22Re as regular force units?

Or should we create (recreate) a 4th Light Infantry Regiment and then assign/rebadge the present 3 bns to it. That would leave the three present CMBGs more or less as they are now although with three Mech Inf Bns. This would also deal with the issues of differing infantry doctrines/training org ( Lt vs Mech) etc and  of transferring pers from Mech to Lt Bns in the same regiment issues as noted in another thread.


----------



## Slim

I actually applaude that idea very much.

An understrength brigade formation with its own logistics, communications kit and air support. People could be posted in and out just like any other normal command. You could even say it is expanding on the idea of the DART teams of the early 90's. The JSS (if we ever get them) should fit into this org rather nicely.

Maybe need to buy a few more assetts (not many) more new H-92's configured for tactical troop lift and support. Some air recce assetts (UAV's perhaps) and some heavy air lift (C-17's?)

Roll it into a ball and there you go...

Slim


----------



## Jungle

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Curious though Jungle are you advocating replacing the 3 Bns in the other Bdes   or going with a 2x Mech Inf Bn 1x Armd Regt org? If we do have a third Bn in the CMBGs, and I think we need them (or at the very least a designated trained and equipped 3rd Militia "roundout" Bn), what would the designation be? Are we going to see 4th PPCLI, 4th RCR and 4th R22Re as regular force units?


Yes, I am advocating standing up 3 new Battalions for the Brigades. Now what they would be named, 4th RCR / PPCLI / R22eR... or activate ResF units to RegF status... or create a completely new Regt... I don't care much. I am not a big fan of the Regt'l system we are using now, and I could live with a new, "modernized" version of it.


----------



## Infanteer

> An understrength brigade formation with its own logistics, communications kit and air support. People could be posted in and out just like any other normal command. You could even say it is expanding on the idea of the DART teams of the early 90's. The JSS (if we ever get them) should fit into this org rather nicely.



I don't know if I like that idea.  One of the most important aspects of a "high-speed, low-drag" Light Infantry unit would be cohesion.  If you were to turn the unit into a "revolving door", you'd have high turbulence due to pers coming in and going out.  I feel the Brigade would be better suited by acting as a regimental family, just as the current units within the CMBG's operate.  A member would be part of the Regiment for the duration of his career and would not bring "baggage" from other regiments.

(As an aside, I know the Airborne Regiment operated as a "tasking" for line regiments.  How do you guys who served in the Regiment feel about this?)




> Now what they would be named, 4th RCR / PPCLI / R22eR... or activate ResF units to RegF status... or create a completely new Regt... I don't care much. I am not a big fan of the Regt'l system we are using now, and I could live with a new, "modernized" version of it.



Totally agree.  If this was to be done, a totally new regiment would have to be created or one brought up from the Reserve Force.  By making it composed of other regiments or giving the tasking to one or another, you are just asking for politicking, regimental infighting, and unneeded friction (WHY THE HELL DO THE FRENCH/WEST/ROYALS/INUIT/RUSSIANS GET THAT AND WE DON'T!!!!).  Something we don't need.


----------



## Slim

> I don't know if I like that idea.  One of the most important aspects of a "high-speed, low-drag" Light Infantry unit would be cohesion.  If you were to turn the unit into a "revolving door", you'd have high turbulence due to pers coming in and going out.  I feel the Brigade would be better suited by acting as a regimental family, just as the current units within the CMBG's operate.



Sorry all

I didn't explain myself very well. What I meant to say was that, like the American JSOC, you would post people in and out of this command the same way. The nucleus of the unit would be built around a regimental formation with the same unit cohesiveness that the current ones have. It would just have the goodies to be able to deploy and be self-sustaining in any theatre of operations.

Heck, you could even include the JTF as part of the orbat and have the units train to support them so That, in time of need, they could form into a well-oiled ball and proceed to roll with whatever mission has been tasked to them.

I am picturing a lightfighter brigade built around a regt. that can deploy QUICKLY to a theatre with the required assets already in place to hit the ground running.

Slim


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Martin eyes 8,000 new troops

By STEPHANIE RUBEC, SUN OTTAWA BUREAU

NEW YORK -- Prime Minister Paul Martin will follow through on an election promise next month to hire 8,000 more soldiers, senior government officials say. The Liberal minority government will lay out its plan to hire 5,000 soldiers to man a new peacekeeping brigade and 3,000 reservists in next month's throne speech, a federal official said yesterday. 

"That will be on top of the current commitment" to boost the size of the reserves to 18,500 by 2005, another official said. 

The reserves now stand at about 15,500, not including those working full-time in positions with the regular Forces, due to a bogged-down recruiting system. 

The Forces has about 52,000 soldiers. 

Conservative MP Gordon O'Connor criticized the creation of the peacekeeping brigade, calling for the Liberals to fill empty positions across Canada with the 5,000 new soldiers who are pegged for the Forces. 

O'Connor said the decision to train those soldiers solely for peacekeeping missions means they won't be able to perform any other jobs. 

"They've got to be combat trained," he said. "When you have military forces, you've got to be able to do more than one thing." 

O'Connor said the Liberals will have to boost the cash-strapped military's budget by at least $400 million annually to pay the 5,000 full-time soldiers, and by more than $1 billion for their equipment. 

Recent reports warn that without a budget hike, the Canadian Forces will have to mothball the navy's destroyers and half of their fighter jets to pay for the new hires. 

Canadian Defence Association spokesman Peter Forsberg also criticized the Liberals for limiting the new brigade to a peacekeeping role. 

"We cannot imagine where nor when this 5,000 peacekeeping brigade will be deployed," Forsberg said. 

 ???
<a href=http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2004/09/23/pf-640206.html>LINK HERE</a>


----------



## ackland

I for one am scared of this concept. A PEace Keeping Brigade? How rediculous is that? I would like ot think the Generals are just going along wiht this till they get the money and then turn around and take that brigade and turn it in to some thing useable. 

I don't see the esprit de corp of these troops being very high. As has been discussed the army could use more not less morale. I think that this group might have a whole wack of problems. That's just MHO


----------



## 48Highlander

this has to be a joke....

even Paul Martin can't be THAT stupid....

right?


----------



## PPCLI Guy

I find this all rather amusing, particularly in light of the very difficult decisions that have been made over the last 3 or 4 years to "cash in PYs" to pay for Army Transformation (which, BTW, I agree with, which makes me something of a heretic in most parts).   Where is the infrastructure?   Given that the buys for all major eqpt fleets are basically locked in, where we will we get the eqpt from?   Given that the single largest shortfall in the Army right now is comms eqpt, where will that come from?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

They'll get the kit from across the CF no doubt and make those units even less effective.


----------



## dglad

I think we need more info.  The term "peacekeeping" is pretty loose these days since, as we all know, "peacekeepers" are really trained combat soldiers hanging out on one of Krulak's three blocks.  The government isn't likely to say "Martin Announces New High Intensity Combat Brigade", if only because that would push him into the territory claimed by the Conservatives in their military messaging in the election.  I'd even go so far as to suggest that the real deal here is to simply get more soldiers on-line so we can keep doing more of what we're doing now.  The military has become Canada's primary foreign policy instrument, as putting soldiers on the table gives us at least something of a voice.  It's also something that the government can hold up to the US as an immediatte increase in defence capability (since one can, in theory, at least, get soldiers trained and ready to deploy FAR faster than our procurement system could get us, say, new aircraft or ships).  And I doubt that we'll have a whole new Bde stood up, as much as we'll start trying to establish the capability in our existing Bdes to deploy.

So it's not the "peacekeeper" terminology that has me concerned.  For me, the much greater worry is as indicated above--will we have the resources to adequately train, house and equip these new soldiers?  And if there is a term in this that catches me, it's the word "Brigade". Is this a signal that we're actually going to try to develop a standing, deployable capability at Bde level?  Will we actually have the wherewithal to even TRAIN at a Bde level?  We rarely do UNIT level trg anymore, much less trg at a formation level.  Getting the 8000 new soldiers might be the easy part--being able to deploy, employ and sustain them in anything more than sub-units grouped into op-specific, unit-sized Task Forces will be the real challenge here, I think.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Good points.

That's why I included the " ???" symbol.

Just enough information to confuse people.


----------



## McG

Use this time to group the light battalions into a brigade and spend the 5,000 PYs to beef-up all the brigades.

A "peacekeeping" brigade must be able to function through the whole spectrum of conflict or it will not be effective in even its intended role.   Our Generals know this.


----------



## scm77

Hopefully "peacekeeping brigade" is just a warm and fuzzy name so it doesn't scare the public.


----------



## Kirkhill

What does the panel think about reconfiguring the existing infantry and armoured units into 4 brigades rather than three?  We have been using 3 Inf Bns + 1 Armd Regt since 4 CMBG closed its doors but effectively 2+1 is one way we used to do business (4CMBG and SSF).  It is the way a number of our allies are doing business now if you look at deployment patterns of late and it is the way the new UAs are configured in the States.  UA heavy = 2 Armd TFs + 1 Recce Unit, UA light = 2 Lt Bns + 1 Recce.  

Suppose as has been suggested here by others, notably Jungle and McG that the numbers are used to fill out existing units and support elements and that a fourth light brigade of 3 bns (1 or more para qualified) be stood up.  Would that result in four useable brigades?  What kind of shortfalls would there be?

It seems to me that most people have argued from the stand point of requiring 3 Inf + 1 Armd in every brigade, necessitating finding not jst round-out bodies to fill existing units but finding another 4 units plus supporting arms. Yet many of our allies seem to be comfortable with a basic 2+1 structure onto which atts can be grafted based on mission requirement.


----------



## Acorn

I agree - we could use the new bodies to fill out existing units and take some CSS back from ASD. Not sure we need a full 5000 to fill out the existing reg bde units, but I'm sure the Navy would also be happy to get another ship's company (about 200-300) out of the deal.

In any case, I also agree that we don't necessarily need "square" bdes, so we could form a fourth bde from existing units, though we still have a shortage of guns and tanks. 

We also lack the infarstructure for a new bde garrison though, unless it it co-located with an existing bde. 

We should, with decent funding, be able to field (even with mostly existing equipment):
one "heavy" bde - 1 tank regt (real tanks), 2 mech bn in tracked IFV/APC, 1 SP arty regt. 
two "med" bdes - 1 Direct fire support regt (the new wheeled gun system), 2 mech bn in LAV III, 1 arty regt (towed guns - 2 btty 105, 1 btty 155)
one "light bde - 3 light inf bn, lt arty regt

All of the infantry bns would have their integral combat support returned - pioneers, mortars and anti-tank.

An Army aviation regt would be desirable as well, though the necessary equipment would need to be bought from the ground up - the Griffon just doesn't cut it.

Acorn


----------



## winchable

> the Canadian Forces will have to mothball the navy's destroyers


 :'(


----------



## Kirkhill

You don't hev tae greet just yet Che(start crying for you uneducated folks that can't speak good Scots), Uncle Bill is promising you more money as well..maybe..if his government lasts that long..if the budget passes...anyway.  Its a more positive sign than I have seen in the last 12-20 years.

Just thought about Gagetown, could it support Brigade as it is?  Install the Brigade now and refurbish the quarters and facilities over time?  Or are there not enough useable accomodations left out there?


----------



## Inch

We're talking about 5000 troops here, with their families that's in the range of 15,000-20,000 people.  Where the hell would you put them all?  There was an assessment done out east here to look at the feasibility of moving all pers from Shearwater to Greenwood. When they started crunching numbers they realized that Greenwood could not support another 1000 personnel plus their families.  Not just the base but the town too, there weren't enough houses, schools, churches, etc. IMO, short of building a new base or investing billions in an existing base and associated support facilities, the most cost effective and realistic way would be to spread those troops out across the country with improvements to existing infrastructure. I can't fathom any other way of doing it without spending billions of dollars that we don't have and probably won't get.

Just my $0.02

Cheers


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

You don't think Edmonton could handle 5000 troops (assuming they all went into the combat arms or field trades) and their families?   Also if a new Brigade is formed as apposed to filling in the gaps where would the leadership come from?   You can buy more stoves, you can't buy more leadership.


----------



## Inch

How many pers are in Edmonton at present? 5000? You'd be doubling the base, I don't think anywhere could handle that.  I doubt the real estate market could handle it and if they can't then the PMQ's probably can't.  Not to mention schools for 5000-10,000 more kids, that's a lot of kids man. I just don't think they've thought this through, and it certainly won't and can't happen in the near future, this is something that's going to take years to implement.  Adding 5000 troops plus the replacements for the normal attrition and the baby boomers that are retiring, and there's a lot of them, will all take time to train.  As you mentioned, the leadership will take time to groom too.  It's going to be challenging times ahead. 

Cheers


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> What does the panel think about reconfiguring the existing infantry and armoured units into 4 brigades rather than three?



<heretic mode on>   Why do we need Brigades at all?   We should be organised to refelect the missions and tasks that have been assigned to us by the government.   Until we have a new White Paper, that means 2 x BG on ops indefinitely.   There was mention of the Main Contingency Force (MCF), but for the first time ever, that was dropped from the SORD this year as a task.   So until we have a Defence Review, we should not be adding or subtracting capabilities...   <heretic mode off>

Of course, it is the government of the day that suggested an additional 5000 troops, without the benefit of a Defence Review...


----------



## Kirkhill

Isn't is kind of nice they might be starting?

PPCLI Guy, 

Let's assume that we form 12 fully functional battle groups positioned in three locations in Canada.  What do we call 4 collocated battle groups being jointly, trained and administered if not a brigade?

I see where you are coming from from an operational stand-point but doesn't the brigade still work for administration?


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Okay - I'll buy the administrative aspect - but only if we have to stay in the linear and hierarchical box.  As to training - the BTE is the means by which we train Bde HQs (and NOT Bdes) - and it is a composite formation, with units from at least two different brigades.  We have an assymetrical Army with only one Direct Fire unit.  What is the value (and by that I mean value that is defensible to the government and the tax payer) in grouping the units in the Brigades along tactical lines?


----------



## Kirkhill

Short answer? I don't know.

I can see advantages to grouping in super-bases for administration and now that it is done I don't think I like the idea of spending the money all over again to spread the battle groups out.   Having said that, just because I don't like a thing doesn't mean I couldn't accept it being done for one or two units.     I wasn't impressed with all of the moves that went on and I believe that local foot print is important.

I guess I stand by my first answer.   I don't know. ???


----------



## pbi

Damn! Go away for a bit and look what happens!! Ditto all concerns expressed. Who the hell briefed this idea to the MND?

This is great in terms of  broad intent (ie: more people/kit/$$$) but how the hell is this going to be made to happen? I know that everybody on this thread can think of a list of "But What About...?" questions a mile long. I'd love to see the Course of Action development PowerPoint on this one!!

What the hell is going on here? Is this a trick to get us to "reject" a "gift" so they can turn around and say" Ungrateful sods. We tried, but look at the reaction we got. No more for you!" >


OK-"heck"...I meant "heck.....Sorry.

Cheers.


----------



## Goober

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> Martin eyes 8,000 new troops
> 
> By STEPHANIE RUBEC, SUN OTTAWA BUREAU
> 
> NEW YORK -- Prime Minister Paul Martin will follow through on an election promise next month to hire 8,000 more soldiers, senior government officials say. The Liberal minority government will lay out its plan to hire 5,000 soldiers to man a new peacekeeping brigade and 3,000 reservists in next month's throne speech, a federal official said yesterday.
> 
> "That will be on top of the current commitment" to boost the size of the reserves to 18,500 by 2005, another official said.
> 
> The reserves now stand at about 15,500, not including those working full-time in positions with the regular Forces, due to a bogged-down recruiting system.
> 
> The Forces has about 52,000 soldiers.
> 
> Conservative MP Gordon O'Connor criticized the creation of the peacekeeping brigade, calling for the Liberals to fill empty positions across Canada with the 5,000 new soldiers who are pegged for the Forces.
> 
> O'Connor said the decision to train those soldiers solely for peacekeeping missions means they won't be able to perform any other jobs.
> 
> "They've got to be combat trained," he said. "When you have military forces, you've got to be able to do more than one thing."
> 
> O'Connor said the Liberals will have to boost the cash-strapped military's budget by at least $400 million annually to pay the 5,000 full-time soldiers, and by more than $1 billion for their equipment.
> 
> Recent reports warn that without a budget hike, the Canadian Forces will have to mothball the navy's destroyers and half of their fighter jets to pay for the new hires.
> 
> Canadian Defence Association spokesman Peter Forsberg also criticized the Liberals for limiting the new brigade to a peacekeeping role.
> 
> "We cannot imagine where nor when this 5,000 peacekeeping brigade will be deployed," Forsberg said.
> 
> ???
> <a href=http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2004/09/23/pf-640206.html>LINK HERE</a>



Its good to see the NHLers are keeping busy during the labour dispute.

I think the name "Peacekeeping Brigade" is just a media friendly name. Well, hopefully anyway. I will be interested to see where all these troops go though. Do any of you guys think a new base would be opened to house these soldiers?


----------



## pbi

> Do any of you guys think a new base would be opened to house these soldiers?




See-this is what I mean by "But What About..." questions. When we built the new 1 PPCLI building, it cost well over 20,000,000 dollars in 1996/97 dollars. For one building. What will it cost to build (or even to lease) a full brigade-size base? And etc, etc, etc.


Don't misunderstand me: I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth, but the idea is so unrealistic as to be ludicrous. I have not the faintest idea what the total cost would be, even for a "light" Bde,since pers and infrastructure costs are pretty well the same no matter what. And just what, pray tell, is a "Peacekeeping Brigade?". More to the point, just what is "Peacekeeping"? Cheers.


----------



## Brad Sallows

>What do we call 4 collocated battle groups being jointly, trained and administered if not a brigade?

Lodger units.


----------



## Garbageman

Goober said:
			
		

> I think the name "Peacekeeping Brigade" is just a media friendly name. Well, hopefully anyway. I will be interested to see where all these troops go though. Do any of you guys think a new base would be opened to house these soldiers?



Chilliwack?  The Liberals certainly could use the extra votes in B.C. anyway.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Did I miss where it said how long it will take for this to happen?


----------



## Kirkhill

> >What do we call 4 collocated battle groups being jointly, trained and administered if not a brigade?
> 
> Lodger units.



I bow...


----------



## JBP

Well I know one thing for sure about this whole situation!


....

We have certainly got the SPACE for new soldiers! Heck, we've got more than thousands of miles to build a new base(s)!!!! 

 :blotto:

That's about all we've got at the moment, lots of space, trees, rocks, water and foliage...

That's all I believe we'll be seeing out of this promise for years to come. It will take ALOT of time+money+work.

Joe


----------



## x westie

Is anyone in the "know" think the PM  and the MND has been briefed with the facts to as what he is proposing or is it all "smoke and mirrors" also to deploy this "Peace Keeping Brigade" takes heavy lift capability, we had problems getting the PPCLI battle group to Afghanistan.


----------



## pbi

> Is anyone in the "know" think the PM  and the MND has been briefed with the facts to as what he is proposing or is it all "smoke and mirrors" also to deploy this "Peace Keeping Brigade" takes heavy lift capability, we had problems getting the PPCLI battle group to Afghanistan



This is the kind of stuff that as far as I can see is totally missing from this equation. It is difficult to see how we could achieve this goal, for a whole host of reasons, in anything less than about five years of steady funding, growth, NCO/Officer training equipment influx and infrastucture development _over and above what is required to run the Army now_. What training demands would an additional Bde put on our trg system?

My guess is that this is not what it seems. Is there anybody on this thread who can offer us some insight? Cheers.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

What is the proposed time line?  If its like 10 years then sure its possible.  However you have to take into account the reiterments and pers getting out or transfering to another trade.  My unit good easily fill postions for 200, however the infrastructure to support them and any families isn't there.


----------



## Goober

The only timeline I've seen was about reserves from the article in the first post.


> "That will be on top of the current commitment" to boost the size of the reserves to 18,500 by 2005, another official said.



Never seen anything about the reg force timeline. 2005 seems too soon though, to boost the reserves by 3000. I wouldn't know too much about that though.


----------



## Infanteer

Judging by the efficiency of the CFRC recruiting system, I could see us getting 5,000 extra bodies through by 2043.

Has anyone up high bothered to inquire if a recruiting and training system that has problems dealing with today's tempo could support a ramped up recruiting drive?


----------



## pbi

Here is another good candidate for the "But What About...?" List:



> Has anyone up high bothered to inquire if a recruiting and training system that has problems dealing with today's tempo could support a ramped up recruiting drive?



 I have often wondered how it is intended to deal with mobilization, since to augment the CFRC's  for national  mobilization will require the same officers and senior NCOs everybody else will be screaming for. And, to the best of my knowledge, the CFRS has no Class A Reserve component  to permit raoid expansion. Cheers.


----------



## Jungle

pbi, by CFRS i suppose you mean CFLRS ? If that is the case, then there are about 30 reservists working there now on contracts.
Another option for trg all these additional troops is to do like we did in the early 80s. The CF hired thousands of people in the YTEP program, and most of them were trained in the Regt'l Battle Schools. They had the same instructors for BMQ and MOC trg.
The recruiting system is a different story, back then the Reserves were recruited by the units.


----------



## redleafjumper

A better idea might be to establish a defence policy that sorted out Canada's long term national defence needs.  A "peacekeeping brigade?" Give me a break.  Better use of the resources would be to increase the amount of paid days for reservists, encourage recruiting on a broader base and fund more and better training exercises.  Resources allocated to the reserve "brigades" would be money much better spent.  It is amazing to see how small some reserve units are and just how much operational experience is present in terms of the reserve soldier.  There are reserve units in this country commanded by lieutenant colonels that don't even meet company strength.  Put the resources into addressing that problem, not a public relations brigade.  
It would also be nice if we developed the resources to actually move such a unit around.  There is a lot of talk about airlift capability but we cannot move a major formation of any size without relying on the resources of the Americans or the Brits.  I was at McChord AFB several years ago and I was watching a cabrac of Starlifters do touch and go takeoff and landing training - in the 24 or so aircraft participating there was more lift capability than in the whole CF.  These capabilities are expensive, and there is not political will to do the right thing and create a balanced military that has clearly defined roles.  The votes in BC still won't be going to the liberals.


----------



## McG

> *Forces build-up should start now â â€ Graham*
> CanWest News Service
> TORONTO
> Printed in the Edmonton Journal, Sat 25 Sept 04
> 
> The long-awaited blueprint for the future of the Canadian Forces won't be completed until next spring, but Defence Minister Bill Graham says the Liberal government should not wail that long to put serious money behind its campaign promise for 5,000 new full-time troops.
> 
> â Å“We can walk and chew gum at the same time,â ? Graham said this week. â Å“The platform commitment was there for the troops ... That's a commitment made by the Liberal party as part of an election platform. We should deliver on it.â ?
> 
> Prime Minister Paul Martin has said there won't be any new money for the military until the defence review is completed. It was widely expected the defence review would be completed by years' endâ â€in time for an expect ed February federal budget. But now won't happen until spring.
> 
> Martin promised during June's election campaign to add 5,000 new full- time troops and 3,000 reservists to the Forces.
> 
> Graham said he's spoken with Finance Minister Ralph Goodale about more money for the Forces, and he's confidentâ â€ for now.
> 
> â Å“The finance minister was pretty good in discussions with us in saying there's been a better economy than anybody thought,â ? Graham said.


We should start to grow now before we build any new units or formations.  Even if soldiers get through the recruiting system before a plan is in place, we could over-size sections or an additional section in each Pl/Tp would allow the new guys to start building experience before we have to start a promotion spree to fill new leadership jobs higher up.

Kudos to the MND on this call.


----------



## Infanteer

> We should start to grow now before we build any new units or formations.  Even if soldiers get through the recruiting system before a plan is in place, we could over-size sections or an additional section in each Pl/Tp would allow the new guys to start building experience before we have to start a promotion spree to fill new leadership jobs higher up.



I think you're right on the money there McG.  Better to use what you already got then to start from scratch.


----------



## pbi

> pbi, by CFRS i suppose you mean CFLRS ? If that is the case, then there are about 30 reservists working there now on contracts.
> Another option for trg all these additional troops is to do like we did in the early 80s.



Roger that, but that wasn't what I was referring to. The Res employed on Class B in the various CFRCs do not represent an expansion capability: they are just filling existing holes. What I mean is the capacity to augment full time operations in an emergency by bringing on trained Class A Reservists to active duty, just as we do for Intl Ops or Dom Ops. To the best of my knowledge the CFRCs do not have this Reserve component. Perhaps, as you suggested with the YTEP example, they don't need it. If so, it would suggest to me that they must have excess capacity, which is a bit difficult to reconcile with the slowness of the system. Cheers.


----------



## redleafjumper

Wow, several years to raise a brigade.     It's sure a good thing it isn't 1914 or 1939.  Certainly Martin has once again revealed that he has no clue about the defence issue, but yikes, we'd sure be in trouble if there was ever another war; the mobilization plans must be amazing  (if they exist...).  These jokers should fund the units that are there and (broken record comment) develop a defence policy that makes some sense.  :   There must some way to streamline recruiting, I have often heard comments about how slow the process is to bring someone on strength.  Even taking people off supp list takes an inordinate amount of time.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Its not like the PM can force people to join and you also have to take into account the kit needed to outfit a new Brigade (from stoves to veh).  Also the infrastructure that needs to be in place (housing, job market, etc) for the families.  Perhaps a more sound idea would be to take the proposed increase in manpower and spread it over the existing brigades that already exist.  I believe it may have already been mentioned.


----------



## pbi

> Wow, several years to raise a brigade.     It's sure a good thing it isn't 1914 or 1939.



The problem is that this isn't the only game in town for the military or for the Govt. In the two WW's we engaged in a vrey high degree of national mobilisation. However, it is worth remembering that while we were able assemble the people and (some) of the toys in fairly short order in 14 and 39, these "Bdes" were not worthy of the name until after a considerable amount of training and combat experience was under the belt.


----------



## bossi

CFL said:
			
		

> Also if a new Brigade is formed as apposed to filling in the gaps where would the leadership come from?   You can buy more stoves, you can't buy more leadership.



Ladies and gentlemen, please feel free to divide my two cents worth any way you see fit.
I'd almost be willing to bet money on this, except that all my disposable income is tied up in contributions to my CF reservist pension fund (a.k.a. Lotto 6/49).

Hmmm ... let me see ... where in the CF we already have a headquarters without a brigade ...?
(can you say "Joint Operations Group HQ" in Kingston ... ?)

Hmmm ... let me see ... is that anywhere close to our Peace Support Training Centre ... ?
(PSTC is already in Kingston, as well as LFDTS/DAT ... and Kingston's largest high school, RMC)

Hmmm ... let me see ... the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre in Cornwallis seems to have been sputtering lately ... I wonder whether Queen's and/or RMC would like to take it under their wing ... ?
(heck - as long as this is a pipe dream - don't ask what's in the pipe - why not just transplant PPC to Kingston, too - savings in airfare alone would more than pay for the move ...)

Hmmm ... let me see ... just down the road in Trenton is a reasonably good airhead, as well as an establishment that could be expanded to be their "battle school"
(i.e. CPC has been itching to become something larger than just a parachute school ...)

Hmmm ... let me see ... if they ever get around to building/buying those Navy ships that could carry troops and their equipment, I wonder if they could get to Kingston via the St Lawrence Seaway ... ?

Hmmm ... let me see ... could we benefit from being able to conduct "peacekeeper" training separate from warfighting (i.e. let 1, 2, and 5 Brigades and all the CBGs focus on warfighting ... ), or hire ourselves out to train other armies (i.e. under the auspices of U.N. subsidies, or pure "pay-per-view" contracts)?   After all, Fort Drum is just across the river, if the US Army would like to enter into a partnership of any kind ...

Hmmm ... let me see ... Kingston is sorta halfway between Toronto and Montreal, too ...
(two fairly large commercial airports ... and Kingston's got a small airstrip already ...)

Geez - ya know, maybe I should buy a cheap briefcase and be a consultant
(I've already got a "power suit" ... no, not a Power Ranger suit, you morons ... !)

Oh, wait - what was I thinking?   I'm not related to anybody in the federal Liberal party ...

Okay - _cry havoc, and let loose the dogs of speculation ... !!!_


----------



## Kirkhill

Careful bossi all that Hmmming can cause oxygen deprivation!!! Impairs judgement.....

In this case I think you wuz thinking purty good....

Following exceptions: -

Minus side - yup you can get ships into Lake Ontario, don't know for sure about Kingston, but can you get them out again in a hurry in February?  Unless you're planning on getting some help from Global Warming (Keep in mind that the Brits and Euros are planning on spending MORE money on heating as a result of Global WARMING ----- ain't it funny how life's like that?)

Plus side - Montreal has got a lovely great under-utilized Airport with expansive hardstands and really long runways and Cargo handling capability and a Bell Helicopter Plant and NO CUSTOMERS.  The Mirabel Bde? Or at least the Mirabel Storage Facility.

Good thoughts mate.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

On the Lake Ontario issue, there was actually a feasibility study done and it wouldn't be that big a deal to dredge the Seaway so you could get larger ships all the way to Toronto/Hamilton.

What I believe killed the plan was Quebecois opposition that such an open seaway would bypass Montreal and its monopoloy of getting imported goods into Ontario.



Matthew.


----------



## GGboy

Nice idea there Mark, but forget: never happen ...
The staff wallahs in NDHQ crunched the numbers for the PMO on the proposed new "peacekeeping" brigade this summer and after the Liberals regained consciousness from the sticker shock they reluctantly agreed to add the 5,000 to the existing understrength bdes.


----------



## WAFFEN_SS

Forget about a new Brigade, let us work on our existing troops, and increase their capabilities by 2 or folds. We should have a more professional army rather a large N Korean style one. lol

More effective rather than just MORE....


----------



## Storm

GGboy said:
			
		

> Nice idea there Mark, but forget: never happen ...
> The staff wallahs in NDHQ crunched the numbers for the PMO on the proposed new "peacekeeping" brigade this summer and after the Liberals regained consciousness from the sticker shock they reluctantly agreed to add the 5,000 to the existing understrength bdes.



Do my eyes deceive me? Can this be true? Something that makes sense finally: fixing current problems before creating more.


----------



## Infanteer

Increasing our Army by 5,000 will not lead to a "North Korean" one.   Rather, it is meant to prevent the over-deployment of our most important resource, our professional soldiers.

An acceptable frequency of deployments due to an extra Brigade would go far in "increasing our capabilities by 2 or folds."


----------



## Jungle

GGboy said:
			
		

> after the Liberals regained consciousness from the sticker shock they reluctantly agreed to add the 5,000 to the existing understrength bdes.


Hopefully they will send some extra positions to the training system establishments. Processing 5000 more people through basic trg, on top of whatever we need to maintain our numbers, will require more instructors.


----------



## NavyGrunt

And yet here I wait on month 9 of my transfer...to the Army that is "crying for guys"......still a year away from getting in sigh. Talk talk talk they'll do this for 4 years and then dangle the carrot in front of our noses in the next election.....Im so sick of the talk.


----------



## Bomber

Anyone here think that reopening Germany might be an idea?  I guess it wouldn't use the new ships, but the air and rail heads are there, maybe we could try and re lease one of the old bases we got rid of mid 90's.  Moving a bunch of equipment 400km's closer to where we are currently operating might save some wear and tear.  And we would then have the "new" brigade, 4 CMBG maybe?


----------



## Kirkhill

If you couldn't get the old Canadian ones back you might be able to secure one of the ones that the Americans or the Brits are giving up.  Might even get it at a good price.  Store some kit there.  Fly troops  over for exercises.  Demonstrate a tie in with Europe.   Maybe Poland would be a better location -  apparently better training areas and the Government is more Atlanticist in outlook.  It would align us more with Britain, and the US as well as Denmark, Holland, Hungary and the Czechs amongst others, vs the French, Germans and Belgians - not an inconsequential consideration if Europe comes apart again in a few years.


----------



## a_majoor

Many people have already pointed out that "peacekeeper" is something of a semantic issue. I found it ironic based on the CF deployments of the 1990s, with units being greeted by mortar fire, our "peacekeepers" being targeted and killed by mines and anti tank missiles, entire OPs being surrounded by tanks and captured prior to the Croatian "Op Storm"...

To be an effective "peacekeeping" brigade, the soldiers would need to have protection and mobility, making an armoured combat team using tanks and tracked IFV's a "must". To operate as an expeditionary force (and by definition it will be, unless Paul Martin thinks peacekeeping forces are needed in Calgary), they will need a very robust CSS train, including a large proportion of armoured or protected transport vehicles. To be able to function effectively in a foreign environment, this brigade will need a large slice of Int, CIMIC and ISTAR assets, as well as a big reachback to national level assets as well. The headquarters will need to be an effective "Joint HQ" environment in order to effectively use air and sea assets for logistics and support.

In other words, Paul Martin is proposing to create the premier fighting formation of the CF! If we want or need it quickly, the government should be prepared to fork over about $10 billion....


----------



## Kirkhill

Agreed on all points a_ majoor.

Now if somebody could just itemize that 10 Billion, cost it out, explain how much of the money goes to hard expenses and how much is mandated by government policy constraints, compare it to the cost of buying kit offshore and operating it under US, UK or Aussie accounting practices instead of our own and then PUBLISH the findings then Canadians could start to have a rational, well-founded debate.

Cheers.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

> To be an effective "peacekeeping" brigade, the soldiers would need to have protection and mobility, making an armoured combat team using tanks and tracked IFV's a "must".



This is the kind of contention that gets us in trouble.  Why exactly do we need tanks?  We need to articulate our demands in terms of capabilities and effects on the enemy, rather than on platforms, or we run the risk of apeearing to be asking for "toys for the boys".


----------



## Brad Sallows

Capability: any manoeuvre element of the brigade (up to and including the brigade) can defend against and defeat an attacking mechanized or armoured force of one higher echelon size in terrain favourable to the attacker.

Capability: any manoeuvre element (etc) can attack and defeat a defending mech or armd force of one lower echelon size in terrain favourable to the defender.

Capability: any manoeuvre element (etc) can defeat a mech or armd force of equivalent size in an encounter battle in any terrain.

Capability: formation information dominance within a bubble of minimum 20km radius.

Capability: close support CSS self-sufficiency for a minimum of 96 hours.

Now go shopping.


----------



## Infanteer

> Now go shopping.



Bill to Mr. B Sallows.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I think it would be better to have tanks and not need them then to need them and not have them vs that POS MGS system that isn't been proven and can't do any of the jobs the tank could nearly as well.


----------



## Brad Sallows

On the bright side, at least the topic title isn't "Brigade of Peacekeepers Announces New PM".


----------



## PPCLI Guy

CFL said:
			
		

> I think it would be better to have tanks and not need them



Unless you were a disintersted taxpayer, or unless having tanks meant we couldn't afford C-17s, or flak vests, or ammo...


----------



## a_majoor

The short answer is we need tanks and all the other kit of a "real" peacekeeping brigade to overmatch any possible adversary, protect our forces and project power to accomplish the mission objectives.

Our inability to do so means "peacekeeping" Peace support operations or any other intervention of that sort will be totally ineffective,as you can see by looking at recent history. Canadian troops in the Balkens provided about as much muscle as was possible in the early 1990s, without really changing the overall situation. One reason the ROEs were so restrictive was to keep our guys from being sucked into firefights with superior Serb, Croat or Muslim formations. Without the muscle to back effective ROEs, our troops were mostly spectators to a ghastly dance of death, and if the Serbs or Croats felt we were in the way, why taking hostages or pushing troops out of OPs was laughably easy. When President Clinton finally decided to intervene, the Americans came in with a "hard power" force capable of overmatching any feasible opposition, which is why we are in Bosnia supervising the Dayton Peace Accord, rather than the Montreal or Toronto Peace accord....

I'm a bit surprised our talking heads never seem to get that point.

As for PPCLI guy, it is true you can't get it all, but we in the military community need to make our point at every opportunity to open people's eyes and let them see what they need to spend to get the results they expect. Effective "peacekeeping" will be very expensive, and Canadians will have to make a real choice: pony up the cash, or get out of the game.

In the end, I wouldn't mind if we were told to get out of the game by an informed public opinion, at least they will have made a choice and will know what the potential consequences are. Being cut here and there on a constant basis means leaving the game by default, and I am not sure if the Canadian public is really aware of the dangers they could (may, will) face if that happens


----------



## PPCLI Guy

> The short answer is we need tanks and all the other kit of a "real" peacekeeping brigade to overmatch *any possible adversary*,



(emphasis is mine)

I think that is where we get ourselves into trouble.   Are we really talking about a peer or near peer enemy (within a coalition context of course)?   The scaled approach suggested by Kirkhill would get our point across much better:

For this much money, we can defeat the following types of adversaries...


----------



## a_majoor

A scaled approach is probably more feasable in both political and economic terms, but thing we need to consider are the "just in case" scenarios. The Croats had lots of M-84 and T-72 tanks, as well as lots of artillery some air power and SF capabilities. I remember reading that Canadian troops found a tank park of T-55's under control of a local warlord in Somalia. NATO wouldn't move into Kosovo with ground troops because the Serbs could fight back with a fairly large military and paramilitary apparatus. Polish soldiers in Iraq apparently found one IED rigged out of a Sarin filled artillery shell (nerve gas).

We need to tell the public and decision makers that this is the environment we will be facing, probably for decades to come. If the bad guys con't use that sort of kit effectively when we first get there, they will be motivated to learn how once we start interfering with their plans. A robust expeditionary force is what is required to operate under these conditions.

The worst of all possible worlds will be a classic lightly armed and equipped "Peacekeeping Brigade". It will take up precious resources, add no capability and we will be treated to the spectacle of driving past their shiny base in Trenton as we deploy to the airhead to do the missions they are not trained and equipped to do.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

> The worst of all possible worlds will be a classic lightly armed and equipped "Peacekeeping Brigade". It will take up precious resources, add no capability and we will be treated to the spectacle of driving past their shiny base in Trenton as we deploy to the airhead to do the missions they are not trained and equipped to do.



On this we agree totally.  I am just trying to make sure that we understand our audience when we identify our needs.  It is not the defence policy wonk in DND,  It is not Granatstein et al  :, nor even the PCO.  It is the public, and our own internal audience that we need to speak to.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Well if they come out with a white paper that states (and follows) that we will not be put into harms way (to the best of their int) then the MGS will suit our needs just fine.  I think this system is flawed and one dimensional.  Israel, US and UK have proven its use in Iraq and Israel/West Bank.  Granted we probably never be put into that harms way (which well lessen our effort to our allies) but these MGS can be easily taken out by some guy in Africa with an RPG (ie Black Hawk Down).  Less survivability, less mobility, less accuracy.  Way to go.  What are your numbers that stated because of tanks we don't have flak vests, C 17's etc.  I realize we can't have everything we want but the MGS is a piece of crap and everyone knows it.  Also they can't be carried in the C 130 battle ready.  Sorry for the MGS tangent.


----------



## R031button

The other key issue is the cost. With Britain, Germany and the US looking at making sleeker, lighter mechanized formations, it's not unimaginable that they would be willing to part with some of their used armour for a price considerably lower then that of the MGS and it's associated train of vehicles. Afterall, the governments not just planning on buy the MGS but a system of four vehicles acting together....only one of that system's parts won't be operations until 2010. It is foolish to the extreme for us to bank our entire DFS capability on a system of  vehicles unproven in combat, and it is downright idiotic to do so when part of the system won't arrive to 8 years. More to the point though, what ever happened to keeping it simple, why go out and buy a three part system that has the capability of one? I mean what will happen when you start taking casualties (one of the US divisions in Iraq lost four LAV3's in a week), and you no longer have one of those parts? Does the entire thing fall apart? Can they still operate effectively? Also, what about the maintenance of the vehicles, if I remember correctly somebody stated that the LAV3 and MGS are only 15% compatible, I have no idea if this is true or not, but if it is, imagine the supply nightmare  of trying to maintain a full Sqn of the the bloody things, when each is different, and your in godknowswherikstan.


----------



## Kirkhill

With respect to all here, I am not advocating getting rid of tanks.  I am not advocating getting rid of anything or for that matter buying anything.  I am suggesting that to assist in getting your point across to the public, and from them to the politicians, that you put a dollar figure on the capability you want/need and state what advantages it offers.

For example, with respect to tanks.

How much does it cost to maintain a Squadron of Leos and their crews?
How much does it cost to Ship and Operate a Squadron in Afghanistan?

How would it compare to a Squadron of MGS/TUA/ADATS for costs?

How much would it cost to buy a Squadron of Challenger 2s/Abrams/Leo IIs?
To maintain them?
To Ship and Operate them?

If you can show, for example that a small squadron of tanks is better value than a large squadron of MGS's and TUA's, or that the relative cost is small, then you take one more argument against taking them out of service away from the bureaucrats.  The public can understand that.    The"Powers" keep arguing that the reason you don't have kit is that they can't afford it.  If you can take that argument away then they will have to start arguing policy --- and that can get them into trouble with their "Allies", a lot more influential body for some politicians than even the taxpayer/voter.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> With respect to all here, I am not advocating getting rid of tanks.   I am not advocating getting rid of anything or for that matter buying anything.   I am suggesting that to assist in getting your point across to the public, and from them to the politicians, that you put a dollar figure on the capability you want/need and state what advantages it offers.
> 
> For example, with respect to tanks.
> 
> How much does it cost to maintain a Squadron of Leos and their crews?
> How much does it cost to Ship and Operate a Squadron in Afghanistan?
> 
> How would it compare to a Squadron of MGS/TUA/ADATS for costs?
> 
> How much would it cost to buy a Squadron of Challenger 2s/Abrams/Leo IIs?
> To maintain them?
> To Ship and Operate them?
> 
> If you can show, for example that a small squadron of tanks is better value than a large squadron of MGS's and TUA's, or that the relative cost is small, then you take one more argument against taking them out of service away from the bureaucrats.   The public can understand that.      The"Powers" keep arguing that the reason you don't have kit is that they can't afford it.   If you can take that argument away then they will have to start arguing policy --- and that can get them into trouble with their "Allies", a lot more influential body for some politicians than even the taxpayer/voter.



Agree 100%....but until the CF cleans up their accounting structures, I think the likelihood of getting those numbers is somewhere between slim and nil.



Matthew.   :-\


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Can't put a price on a crewmens head.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Can't put a price on a crewmens head.



Actually CFL I could you argue you already have.  You signed on.....

That concept is as flawed as the notion that we can afford top of the line health care for all for free.

Everything is about risk, taking risks, reducing risks and how much reduction in risk can we afford. Based on that mean-spirited, hard-hearted, bloodless calculation the Government then asks for volunteers willing to accept the risk.

Cheers,  and sorry to be a ba****rd about it but that is exactly what is entailed in joining the army and going places where people shoot at you.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

"Actually CFL I could you argue you already have."  Sentence structure.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I'd like to believe that the gov't holds the best interests of its soldiers at heart.  I've got no problem serving but please give me the best equipment we can get to get the job done.  Reducing risk thats the key.


----------



## Kirkhill

> "Actually CFL I could you argue you already have."  Sentence structure.



Dear oh Dear oh Dear.... how awfully naughty of me Basil.  Cheers CFL


----------



## Kirkhill

> I'd like to believe that the gov't holds the best interests of its soldiers at heart.  I've got no problem serving but please give me the best equipment we can get to get the job done.  Reducing risk thats the key.



And on that note, we definitely agree..


----------



## a_majoor

WRT costs, the Government reportedly spent @$600 million for 66 MGS. Even adding in the spare parts bill, training and "support" costs into that figure, you still have spent about as much as you would for a "real" tank. (and this doesn't cover the TUA or ADATs versions either)

The business of how much it costs to send a sqn overseas is a bit of a red herring. It would be fantastically expensive to try to send a LAV combat team over by air (I believe the Americans calculate 25 C-17 chalks, and that is with 3 LAVs/plane), and the vehicles and crews would only have minimal stores.

Any serious deployment will go in by ship, and once you start planning on those lines, it doesn't matter if you are shipping LAVs or MERKAVAs. The savings of using medium and light forces are supposed to be achieved by reducing the logistics trail for mechanized formations, mostly fuel and spare parts. Ammunition is supposed to be saved through the use of "smart rounds" and enhanced situational awareness to shoot and kill things with minimal expenditures.

But we must be speaking the same language here. If the end result is to apply military power to suppress civil war and military insurrections, then you need to bring the biggest and most capable clubs to do the job. If you don't need to use them, even better! With current technology, light and medium forces do not fit the bill, however attractive they seem in terms of procurement, transportation or logistics costs. (A big "IF" by the way).

Light and medium forces do fit the bill to support heavy forces in general operations (flanking, screening, economy of force and exploiting come to mind), as well as operations in restrictive terrain (mountains and dense jungles). The IDF has demonstrated that heavy forces are quite valuable in Urban Ops, using a combination of Merkavas and Achzarits as the core of their combat teams striking into the West Bank.

So it all boils down to this: what is the "Peacekeeping Brigade" supposed to do? Once defined, how will they achieve these ends? The answer will probably look like "Canada's premier fighting formation" more than anything else.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Looks like this discussion has been picked up by the think tank radar and has spawned an article specifically about the PM's proposed peacekeeping briagade and your thoughts on this:

Clone  the  Soldier!   How  will  Canada  Raise  and  Use  the
5000  troops  required  for  a  new  'Peacekeeping Brigade' ?
 http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-sr-pkb-intro.htm

CASR gives a good reference to Army.ca and this discussion particular:

*   These excerpts are taken from an  Army Discussion Group 
(http://army.ca and specifically this topic http://army.ca/forums/threads/19908.75.html)
which all citizens should read from time to time.   Look  at  the  world  â â€œ  and  our  country  â â€œ         through  the  eyes  of  those  who  value  it  so  highly  that  they  are willing to kill and die  for  it.  All  they  ask  is  that  they  be  provided  with  the  resources        necessary  for  them  to  get  on  with  their  dangerous,  ugly,  necessary  job.        Remember,  they  are  primarily  soldiers.   Peacekeeping  is  a  specialty.


----------



## NavyGrunt

Yeah WE'RE FAMOUS!!!!


----------



## Infanteer

Hey, we're famous....

[funny, you said that as I was posting...]


----------



## ArmyRick

Peacekeeping Brigade? Enough is enough. Man the liberals are out of touch with reality. Train for war and then you can also be trained for peacekeeping/peace enforcement/ implementation or security mission.
The left wingers in Canada need a good smack of reality in the face..


----------



## McG

> Military can't handle new troops, vice-admiral says
> Canadian Press
> Monday, Dec 6, 2004
> 
> Ottawa â â€ The military does not have the resources to deal with thousands of extra recruits due to join its ranks, the second-in-command of Canada's armed forces says.
> 
> â Å“At the moment, no,â ? Vice-Admiral Ron Buck, the vice-chief of defence staff, told the Senate defence committee Monday when asked if the Canadian Forces has the facilities to house, train and equip another 5,000 troops.
> 
> Prime Minister Paul Martin promised during the spring election campaign to boost the military's ranks by 8,000 members, including 5,000 full-time soldiers and 3,000 reservists.
> 
> He also promised up to $3-billion over five years to enhance Canada's international stature, with most of the money going to defence.
> 
> Adm. Buck said any move aimed at increasing troop strength would have to include more spending.
> 
> â Å“Any proposals to move forward for the 5,000 from our perspective include a resourcing element,â ? he said. â Å“In other words, there is a bill that clearly needs to be paid in terms of personnel, equipment, training and housing.â ?
> 
> The Liberals have maintained that they want the military to concentrate on peacekeeping and nation-building initiatives to help failed states.
> 
> That is expected to be a focus of a new defence policy paper that has been in the works for months.
> 
> But Lewis Mackenzie, a retired general who commanded troops in some of the world's most dangerous places, warned that peacekeepers still need proper training and equipment to perform their duties.
> 
> Post-Cold War governments in Canada have pushed peacekeeping â Å“because it was cheap,â ? he told the committee.
> 
> Gen. Mackenzie said there is a public perception that peacekeeping is somehow less expensive, and even less dangerous, than combat.
> 
> â Å“In actual fact, in most of the missions we've been in, the potential was there to have to fight your way out,â ? he said.
> 
> He cited provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs) being proposed for Afghanistan as a perfect example of the need to properly equip soldiers.
> 
> â Å“If we send a modest force to protect (the PRT) ... then we had better have a guarantee from ISAF headquarters in Afghanistan that they have the capability to rescue those people when a warlord really gets angry with them and decides to take them out.â ?
> 
> Adm. Buck also told the committee that Canada needs to maintain its sovereignty in the North.
> 
> He suggested the federal government consider increasing funding in a number of areas to enhance surveillance by air and sea.
> 
> â Å“Ultimately, there probably would be a need for greater deployability in the Arctic,â ? he added.
> 
> That would mean buying or leasing larger aircraft to move equipment long distances, something the Liberals have frowned on when it comes to defence spending.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041206.wmili1206/BNStory/National/


----------



## Infanteer

Well, that was a "no-shit" point that most of us here on Army.ca picked up on long ago.


----------



## RCD

The Liberals will say anything to stay in power.Our current Prime Minister is just as bad as the last one

         INDECISIVE!


----------



## bossi

It should certainly be a concern to the military, and to the Canadian public, when the Commons Defence Committee is "stunned" - after all, it is their duty to be aware and remain informed of the military situation.
Thus, of all people, the CDC should be the last ones to be surprised.
(as an aside, I loved the use of the word "sophistry" - marvelous!)



> *Troop boost 'will take five years'*
> No money to keep election promise, stunned defence committee told
> 
> Mike Blanchfield, The Ottawa Citizen, Tuesday, December 07, 2004
> 
> The Canadian Forces have not begun recruiting the 5,000 new troops promised by the Liberal government in the last election, and a lack of resources means they likely won't bring them on board for another five years, a Senate committee heard yesterday.
> 
> Vice-Admiral Ron Buck, the vice-chief of the defence staff, cited lack of government funding -- specifically for trainers and housing -- for the long delay.
> 
> The testimony from the second-in-command of the Forces stunned members of the Senate's committee on national security and defence.
> 
> Prime Minister Paul Martin promised the Forces 5,000 new full-time troops, along with 3,000 new part-time reservists, during last summer's heated election campaign, a promise that was criticized at the time as hasty and unworkable by some senior officers in the Forces.
> 
> After a thorough grilling by senators, Vice-Admiral Buck made clear the Forces would not be able to make good on that election promise unless defence spending is increased. He would not say how much more money the Forces need in next year's federal budget.
> 
> "It actually will not be possible to grow by 5,000 or 3,000 in the next three years. It will take a period greater than that," Vice-Admiral Buck testified. "It would be my anticipation that you'd be looking at a five or so years pace."
> 
> Several senators, including committee chairman Senator Colin Kenny, a Liberal, appeared stunned by the revelation.
> 
> "Did I understand you correctly, admiral, that it's going to take five years to increase the size of the Canadian Forces by 5,000?" he asked.
> 
> "Yes," Vice-Admiral Buck replied.
> 
> "Why?" Mr. Kenny shot back.
> 
> Vice-Admiral Buck said the Forces need to increase the number of personnel and equipment.
> 
> "In other words, there is a bill that clearly needs to be paid in terms of personnel, equipment, training and housing," he added.
> 
> Vice-Admiral Buck said the Forces have a plan to begin recruiting, but senior brass is simply waiting on the government to free up more funds so it can be implemented.
> 
> "It's not a slam dunk?" asked Conservative Senator Norman Atkins.
> 
> Vice-Admiral Buck reiterated that the government has said it will boost defence spending in the future, but that "within the resources that are assigned to the Canadian Forces today, we do not have the resources to recruit. We can't afford to recruit."
> 
> Liberal Senator Tommy Banks questioned why Vice-Admiral Buck and other senior officers don't speak out more forcefully about their frustration with the government's spending on defence.
> 
> "Somebody with credibility needs to jump up and down and say, 'we've got to stop this tap dancing,'" said Mr. Banks. "Shouldn't there be someone, in the position as you call it of 'senior leadership' in the Canadian Forces, who can stand up and holler and pound on the desk and say, 'this is sophistry. If we're going to do these jobs that you're giving us, you have to give us more resources, you have to pay more attention to this?' "
> 
> Vice-Admiral Buck said that unlike his counterparts in the U.S. and Britain, he and other senior leaders in the Canadian Forces are not allowed to air their opinions about defence funding in public.
> 
> "This country is different," he said. "We are constrained in our public statements. My position is not to advocate publicly. Mine is to explain government policy."
> 
> Vice-Admiral Buck is considered one of three front-runners to become Canada's military chief this summer when Gen. Ray Henault steps down to take up a senior post at NATO in Brussels.
> 
> He would not speculate on how the new troops could best be deployed. He said that would have to wait until the government completed its foreign policy and defence reviews, which are not to be tabled until the spring.
> 
> In other testimony, Auditor General Sheila Fraser said she would study the effectiveness of recruitment and report back to Parliament in April 2006.
> 
> Ms. Fraser said the Forces face large scale retirement of a large number of skilled officers, who may not be immediately replaceable, causing shortages in a number of specialized professions.


----------



## 48Highlander

> Prime Minister Paul Martin promised the Forces 5,000 new full-time troops, along with 3,000 new part-time reservists, during last summer's heated election campaign, a promise that was criticized at the time as hasty and unworkable by some senior officers in the Forces.
> 
> After a thorough grilling by senators, Vice-Admiral Buck made clear the Forces would not be able to make good on that election promise unless defence spending is increased. He would not say how much more money the Forces need in next year's federal budget.



You'd think that would be a nother "no shit" point.  I find it hard to beleive that even OUR government would be idiotic enough to beleive that we could recruit and train 8,000 soldiers without any aditional funding.


----------



## Storm

> The testimony from the second-in-command of the Forces stunned members of the Senate's committee on national security and defence....
> 
> Several senators, including committee chairman Senator Colin Kenny, a Liberal, appeared stunned by the revelation.
> 
> "Did I understand you correctly, admiral, that it's going to take five years to increase the size of the Canadian Forces by 5,000?" he asked.
> 
> "Yes," Vice-Admiral Buck replied.
> 
> "Why?" Mr. Kenny shot back.



Why so stunned? People don't work for free in any other job. Does Mr. Kenny expect the forces to rub a lamp and have 5,000 fully equipped and trained soldiers with large trust funds to jump out in a puff of smoke?



> Liberal Senator Tommy Banks questioned why Vice-Admiral Buck and other senior officers don't speak out more forcefully about their frustration with the government's spending on defence.


well...


> ... a promise that was criticized at the time as hasty and unworkable by some senior officers in the Forces.


Oh, I see, not listening = "but nobody said anything"



> "Somebody with credibility needs to jump up and down and say, 'we've got to stop this tap dancing,'" said Mr. Banks. "Shouldn't there be someone, in the position as you call it of 'senior leadership' in the Canadian Forces, who can stand up and holler and pound on the desk and say, 'this is sophistry. If we're going to do these jobs that you're giving us, you have to give us more resources, you have to pay more attention to this?' "


There have been people like this in the past. The government has been quite effective at making them disappear.

Shouldn't there be some politician, in the positions of "senior leadership" in the government, with common sense enough to realize a broken plan when presented with one?



> Vice-Admiral Buck said that unlike his counterparts in the U.S. and Britain, he and other senior leaders in the Canadian Forces are not allowed to air their opinions about defence funding in public.
> 
> "This country is different," he said. "We are constrained in our public statements. My position is not to advocate publicly. Mine is to explain government policy."



"But nobody in senior leadership jumped up and down or banged the table saying 'hey idiots, it's not gonna work!!!'" 
They didn't? I'm shocked   :


----------



## Acorn

"Stunned" may well be the most polite descriptive of terms when referring to members of our gov't and their understanding of the CF. I've often heard it as an adjective with a noun that begins with "c."

Acorn


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I attended my local Legion Remembrance dinner and had the pleasure of sitting next to one of our Members of Parliament. We spent quite a while talking about the military and specifically A'stan. If I ever hear the phrase "I had no idea" one more time, it'll be too soon. They don't, they live in their own little rose coloured world shielded from the outside.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Well I hope you eductaed him recceguy


----------



## McG

Well they are listening now.  If the government is ready to produce the money (for pay, equipment, infrastructure, etc), then bring on the troops!


----------



## bossi

MCG said:
			
		

> Well they are listening now.   If the government is ready to produce the money (for pay, equipment, infrastructure, etc), then bring on the troops!



Don't get your hopes up.
The Liberal caucus this week staged a skillfully manipulative farce - a backbencher supposedly introduced a private member's bill to limit funding to the gun registry - at first glance, a wonderful thing ... until one realises that it coincided with the anniversary of the Montreal Massacre ... (i.e. thus it never stood a snowball's chance in the oven).

"Crazy as a fox", as the saying goes.
The Liberals are extremely adept at making announcements over and over again - wasn't it Trudeau who perfected "The Big Lie"?
How many times have they announced the SeaKing replacements ... and how many replacements have we received?
No, sadly - this is all just political posturing, at our expense.
Conspiracy theorists might even point to the thrilling announcements of increases to the Reserves ... and wonder whether the "new peacekeeping brigade" might actually end up being ... a reserve brigade ...
(geez - they might even dust off the name "Permanent Active Miltia" ...)


----------



## Infanteer

Next time we get into a battle and some politician goes to check things out; instead of giving him a tour of the front or showing him through the CP and having him eat dinner in the mess with the troops, they should give him a tour through the field hospital where our casualties are being triaged.

Maybe then he'll understand something.


----------



## Garbageman

I think the Parliamentary Program is a great step forward in educating our elected members:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/focus/DECPR/parlprogram_e.asp

Now if only more of them would actually participate!

Has anyone on here had first hand experience with this?  I'm curious to know how sugar-coated the program is, or whether it's a proper indoctrination.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I think that should be manditory for senior members.


----------



## Edward Campbell

A couple of items caught my eye this morning: first a column in the _Good Grey Globe_ by Hugh Winsor â â€œ which I am quoting in full for the benefit of those who do not subscribe:


> Anyone who watched CNN's venerable defence and foreign affairs correspondent Wolf Blitzer spar with Prime Minister Paul Martin last week would have noted how the Prime Minister skated around any involvement of Canadian observer or military personnel in the coming election in Iraq.
> 
> But there was another message in Mr. Blitzer's skepticism. A veteran of countless Pentagon briefings, the CNN stalwart was incredulous when Mr. Martin said Canada didn't have the resources to field and protect a modest observer mission (even if it wanted to, but that is another question.)
> 
> "Surely you could find a contingent of a 1,000 soldiers for a few weeks," Mr. Blitzer suggested, leaving no doubt he thought that would be a piddling minimum. Without realizing it, he put his finger on the dirty big secret that has been swirling around Department of National Defence headquarters ever since Prime Minister Martin promised, first in his February Speech from the Throne and subsequently in the election platform, to create a special 5,000-person peacekeeping brigade.
> 
> The senior military officers and defence planners know it was an impromptu promise that cannot be fulfilled in the short-term future, and certainly not in Mr. Martin's current mandate, even if the government survives for a conventional four-year term, and even if Finance Minister Ralph Goodale loosens the purse strings.
> 
> But those same officers and planners have been reluctant to send this blunt message to the Martin administration because they don't want to endanger getting additional funds for other priorities. So the Prime Minister continues talking about the new full-time brigade, plus 3,000 additional reservists.
> 
> Preoccupied with leaking submarines or Romanian dancers, the opposition parties in the House of Commons have not focused on the issue. However, a subcommittee of the Senate defence committee got a piece of the story last week from Vice-Admiral Ron Buck, the vice-chief of the defence staff who set the minimum time frame at five years, mostly blaming fiscal constraints.
> 
> The problem is more profound. The Canadian Forces recruiting program is having difficulty keeping up to retirements and the DND planners consider that the best they can do is a net increase of 1,000 full-time personnel a year.
> 
> Training is a big challenge because DND is stretched so thin the would-be trainers can't be spared from the sharp end of active duty to teach their replacements. And if DND can find the bodies, what will they do for equipment?
> 
> A task force of private-sector executives appointed by former defence minister John McCallum found it takes an average of 15 years from the time an equipment need is identified until the equipment gets through the procurement process. DND officials say they hope to reduce that time lag to nine years. (And that's when there are no political obstacles like those blocking the Sea King helicopter replacements.)
> 
> Although the task force report received almost no public attention, it was scathing in its description of DND management. "Without fundamental transformation of the national-level management framework and practices ..... the Canadian Forces will not be able to transform itself rapidly enough to adopt to Canada's changing security environment."
> The task force said it was struck by "a cultural aversion to programmatic risk and, as a result, resistance to all but the most incremental change."
> 
> So before Mr. Martin can deliver on his peacekeeping-brigade promise, he has to address the broader problem and the logical place would be to start at the top. One of the hottest questions inside the defence and security circles is who will be chosen to replace the current Chief of Defence Staff General Ray Henault, who has just been elected to a senior NATO job in Brussels.
> 
> Does the government go for the best political and administrative manager for the top job. Or does it opt for the best soldier or the best sailor? A lot more than the Prime Minister's election plank is riding on the outcome.
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041213.wxwinsor13/BNStory/National/


The second is this, by Mike Blanchfield of the _Ottawa Citizen_, cited by _*bossi*_, up above:


> Liberal Senator Tommy Banks questioned why Vice-Admiral Buck and other senior officers don't speak out more forcefully about their frustration with the government's spending on defence.
> 
> "Somebody with credibility needs to jump up and down and say, 'we've got to stop this tap dancing,'" said Mr. Banks. "Shouldn't there be someone, in the position as you call it of 'senior leadership' in the Canadian Forces, who can stand up and holler and pound on the desk and say, 'this is sophistry. If we're going to do these jobs that you're giving us, you have to give us more resources, you have to pay more attention to this?' "
> 
> Vice-Admiral Buck said that unlike his counterparts in the U.S. and Britain, he and other senior leaders in the Canadian Forces are not allowed to air their opinions about defence funding in public.
> 
> "This country is different," he said. "We are constrained in our public statements. My position is not to advocate publicly. Mine is to explain government policy."



The dilemma facing DND is well known in Ottawa â â€œ the Defence Department was told, during the election campaign, that there would be no new money, except that required to 'top up' for unforeseen *operations*, for at least two years, more likely three or four, no matter what _candidate_ Martin promised.   This was reported, briefly, low down on inside pages, in some newspapers.   The reason it does not become an issue is the _doctrine_ which Ron Buck explained.

_Caveat lector:_ rant begins now ...

There is one small problem: Buck and the senators and the journalists should *know* that doctrine is both pernicious and dangerous to our democratic values.   The essential doctrine is: â Å“don't embarrass the minister.â ?   That's fair enough; if military officers or bureaucrats want to say things which will embarrass the minister they must, as a matter of _proper_ doctrine, resign first.

When the _doctrine_ goes way too far and, indeed, right off the rails, is when it requires mandarins and military officers to *support* the government of the day: this _politicizes_ the military and the civil service and that ought to be anathema to all thinking Canadians â â€œ the fact that it does not cause a great hue and cry leads me to believe that few Canadians actually do think.

The _politicization_ of our armed force reached its nadir when that professionally ultra-lightweight ding-a-ling Maurice Baril stood up in NDHQ and lied about _failures_ of his own people in order to *cover up* for a prime minister who was, quite simply, too selfish and too lazy to do his duty and fly, first class, to Jordan for King Hussein's funeral.   It was bad enough that nearly 40% of Canadians who voted selected a party led by a cheap, ward heeling, sleazy, corrupt buffoon â â€œ we didn't need the Chief of Defence Staff to lie and debase his own troops in order to guarantee a $1,000.00 per day consulting contract (with DFAIT) to see him into   retirement. 

In fact Senator Banks should have rapped Ron Buck's knuckles for *failing* in his *duty* to serve as an apolitical senior officer in a modern, liberal democracy, not as a partisan mouthpiece for the government of the day.

Our admirals and generals do not have a *requirement* or *duty* to speak out, but they do have a *duty* to, at least, say nothing when asked to address anything except the facts.   Buck is wrong: it is not his duty to _â ?explain government policy"_; that is the duty of the government's members: the ministers.

The last officer to understand this and act on it was Vice Admiral Chuck Thomas who, along with Jack Vance, Kent Foster and Larry Murray populates the ranks of _â Å“the best CDS we never had.â ?_

<end rant>


----------



## bossi

R.O.J. - thank you.  Your post was more refreshing than a morning cup of coffee.

However, I can only laugh at the situation - when the Liberals realised their election/campaign promise of an additional brigade would not be forthcoming in the near future ... they went one better, and stood up an entire Corps ... !
(i.e. it's all about public perception, not reality or "getting the job done")
http://army.ca/forums/threads/23670.0.html


----------



## a_majoor

The new Brigade will go by the name:

Human Freedom Intervention Protection Field Force, or HUFINPFF.

That also sums up the thought process that created the idea in the first place.


----------



## McG

> Tougher, meaner breed of peacekeeper needed: Graham
> MIKE BLANCHFIELD
> Ottawa Citizen
> (Printed in Edmonton Journal - 22 Dec 04)
> OTTAWA
> 
> Canadians had better prepare for a meaner, tougher version of the stereo typical peacekeeper because almost all of the new 5,000 personnel for the Armed Forces will go towards army soldiers in the hope of doubling Canada's foreign fighting force, Defence Minister Bill Graham says.
> 
> â Å“The nature of peacekeeping itself has changed,â ? he said Tuesday in a year-end interview.   â Å“You have to fight your way in. You're going to have to go into a situation where you're going to have to fight to establish stability first and then you're going to have to bring democracy, and institution building and humanitarian aid.â ?   That characterization is squarely at odds with the kinder, gentler peace-keeper image that Prime Minister Paul Martin put forth last year when he promised the additional troops during the federal election campaign.
> 
> Canada will return to Kandahar next year and will likely work with the French on a provincial reconstruction team in Afghanistan's volatile south. Graham announced he would travel to Kabul next month to consult with Canadian soldiers stationed there as part of the NATO protection force for Afghanistan. As the Canadian Forces nears completion of its defence review, Graham said the new realities of fighting terrorism and other unconventional threats has rendered obsolete the familiar perception of Canadian peacekeepers â Å“patrolling a lineâ ? in less-threatening locales such as Cypress or the Suez.   Graham said he believes Canadians realize the world has changed and will accept more of their soldiers, in greater numbers, operating in harsher conditions on foreign soil.
> 
> He said he'd be ready to present his defence review to Parliament before the House of Commons reconvenes in early February.   The defence review is part of Martin's broader foreign policy review, which included his campaign promise of 5,000 additional full-time personnel for the Forces. At the time Martin predicted the new troops could be dedicated to a new peacekeeping brigade.  But Graham made clear the addition al troops â â€ which he conceded would take years to recruit and train â â€would bolster existing units, such as the JTF2 elite special forces commandos.   â Å“We've got a good structure at the moment ... What we've got to do is give it more muscle,â ? Graham said. 'The vast majority would go towards the army, but not 100 per centâ ? The navy and air force would see limited personnel increases. Graham said the army currently has the capacity to sustain two groups of 1,200 troops abroad at any given time, in addition to another 800 to 1,000 support troops.   â Å“If we add the 5,000 we should be able to ... almost double that,â ? he said. â Å“So we could keep a substantial larger number of troops abroad for a sustained period of time.â ?
> 
> ...
> 
> CanWest News Service


----------



## Bograt

I was thinking about this a couple of days ago. MND suggested increasing the size of JTF2. With all do respect to these fellows, why not bring back the CAR? Isn't this the capability he is refering to when he suggests "We need to fight our way in..."


----------



## McG

The government could bring back the CAR, or it could create the light brigade described earlier in this thread.  However, it sounds like the plan may be just to increase the size of things that we already have (and that would still be a positive step).


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Now I could be in left field here, as I have not read the article yet[ I'll do that tonight killin' time] but something jumped at me when I read the headline,
Tougher, meaner breed of peacekeeper needed: Graham

To the average person reading that headline, it would seem to imply the soldiers need to be "different" instead of just saying something like " we need to undo some of the constraints that we put upon our peacekeepers".
Like I said, maybe I'm the only one seeing it that way but that is the way I see it.


----------



## pbi

Personally, I am quite amazed to see these words come out of a mouth of that political persuasion, but then let's not forget what political party brought nuclear weapons into our inventory. I am keen to see how this shakes out, although I can't help the skepticism. Cheers.


----------



## Slim

pbi said:
			
		

> Personally, I am quite amazed to see these words come out of a mouth of that political persuasion,



The difference between you and them is that when you speak about something people know that you will do what you say...an officer can do no less.

When the Liberals say something (especially about the CF) they want people to remember it just long enough for it to have the desired effect, then fall quietly by the way side...

Oddly enough what Bill Graham said pretty much cut right to the heart of the matter though...It kind of surprised me somewhat that the Libs are astute enough to pick all that up!

Slim


----------



## MdB

Don't know if you noticed it, cuz it wasn't on CFC news page. Still, here it is and very interesting.

http://www.macleans.ca/switchboard/columnists/article.jsp?content=20050110_97176_97176

Another broken promise
A pledge to add 5,000 troops shows the limits of Canada's military capacity
MARY JANIGAN

It was a visionary election vow, cunningly crafted to appeal to our pride and idealism. And it has become the perfect, sad example of the vast gap between what we say and what we can actually do on the international stage. Ottawa, promised the Liberal platform, would increase its armed forces "by 5,000 personnel, creating a new brigade and greatly enhancing Canada's capacity for peace support." A special peace brigade sounded so imaginative and, more importantly, it eclipsed the Tories' plodding vows.

The dilemmas were in the details. Former defence minister David Pratt had planned to ask cabinet after the election to approve the extra troops. But, insiders say, the notion of a separate brigade for peacekeeping was news to him and the defence establishment. Who would train them? Where was the equipment for them and the housing? For that matter, where was the money going to come from? The annual $13-billion budget can barely support the current 60,000-member regular force. Martin's advisers brushed aside those quibbles: by late August, military leaders were gamely insisting that the new defence minister had assured them that they would get the funds.

Then the tale began to twist. By early October, the Throne Speech pledged to boost "our regular forces by some 5,000 troops." No mention of that catchy brigade. For military analysts, this was a relief because building a separate brigade from scratch, from infrastructure to equipment, was recklessly and needlessly expensive. Instead, most of the new troops would eventually be added to three existing army brigades on three bases across the nation.

Don't hold your breath. Early last month, the vice-chief of the defence staff, Vice-Admiral Ron Buck, told the Senate security committee that he still has not received the money to hire those troops. That would start, he hoped, with the coming 2005-2006 budget. Anyway, once he got the funds, it would take five years to add them all. In carefully bland language, he chatted about the need for trainers and recruiters and equipment and housing: that is, all of those problems that nasty analysts had raised during the election. "I was shocked," says Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, the committee's chairman. "The Second World War would have been over by the time they're hired. This is a litmus test to show how far our defence capability has eroded."

In a strange way, it's good the military has not yet recruited the troops -- because the Liberals have not produced a defence policy. Our armed forces are supposed to play domestic, continental and international roles. But what are they, exactly? How long should we be able to sustain troops in the field? Most defence experts say we should have a 75,000-member force to be truly effective. Is that our goal -- when even 5,000 more sounds like a stretch?

"It's difficult to know where we are going and why we are going there if the government has not told the forces about the direction," warns Alain Pellerin, executive director of the Conference of Defence Associations, a military advocacy group. "Paul Martin wants to make a name for himself in foreign policy. But if you do not have credible military forces, you will not go anywhere." He's right. The saga of the peacekeeping brigade is really a sadly cautionary tale about dreams and realities. And, alas, political promises.


----------



## wongskc

> the Throne Speech pledged to boost "our regular forces by some 5,000 troops." No mention of that catchy brigade.



What's with the media's hookup on having peacekeepers and not regualr troops?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Don't hold your breath. Early last month, the vice-chief of the defence staff, Vice-Admiral Ron Buck, told the Senate security committee  that he still has not received the money to hire those troops. That would start, he hoped, with the coming 2005-2006 budget. Anyway, once he got the funds, it would take five years to add them all. In carefully bland language, he chatted about the need for trainers and recruiters and equipment and housing: that is, all of those problems that nasty analysts had raised during the election. "I was shocked," says Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, the committee's chairman. "The Second World War would have been over by the time they're hired. This is a litmus test to show how far our defence capability has eroded."

Wouldn't ya think the HEAD of the security council and LIBERAL senator should know these things?.....or are the heads really buried in the sand that deep that they honestly don't know?.....and how could that be?


----------



## ArmyRick

wongskc, think about your question. Normal combat soldiers are the ones who perform "Peacekeeping" missions.


----------



## Infanteer

Sure is alot of *"Can't Do"* attitudes in government, isn't there?  I haven't seen one optimistic news report about the Defence Department for quite some time now....


----------



## PPCLI Guy

*Can do* doesn't sell papers - nor does it contribute to the media-maintained state of panic over the potential fall of the minority government.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Can do doesn't sell papers - nor does it contribute to the media-maintained state of panic over the potential fall of the minority government.



My grief Sir, keep posting comments like that and I might be inclined to become cynical.

Cheers


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> My grief Sir, keep posting comments like that and I might be inclined to become cynical.
> 
> Cheers



Every now and then my rose coloured glasses slip, and I see things clearly...

Dave
Most days the glass is half full
Some days the glass is gone cus some (fill in blank-politician, CBC commentator etc etc) stole it


----------



## Kirkhill

Final sentence -


> Military experts told him *Canada should develop a rapid-insertion force in the form of a self-contained mobile brigade*, *an idea that is already taking root in government and military circles in Ottawa.*



Christmas? Or just Santa Claus?



> canada news
> 
> *Forces should maintain combat capability while developing specialty: report*
> Monday, Jan 24, 2005
> 
> OTTAWA (CP) - Canada's armed forces should maintain their combat capability while developing specialized expertise in postwar reconstruction, says a report by a group reflecting the views of young Canadians.
> The military must be prepared for multinational peace operations as well as unforeseen threats to the country's "interests, values and security," says Canada25, a think-tank representing Canadians between 20 and 35 years old. The federal government needs to develop a military deployment strategy that is transparent and predictable, says the group's report, From Middle Power to Model Power: Recharging Canada's Role in the World.
> 
> "For each mission, our allies, the public, and our troops need to know - as far ahead as possible - what we are getting into, what we will do, and when we will get out," says the 116-page document.
> 
> "The federal government should immediately articulate clear intervention criteria for both multilateral peace operations and for deployments to defend against unforeseen threats."
> 
> The non-profit, non-partisan group, founded in Toronto in 2001, is financially supported by universities, private corporations and Foreign Affairs.
> 
> Ottawa's military deployment strategy has been largely seat-of-the-pants in recent years.
> 
> The military's current role with the NATO peacemaking force in Kabul was seen by many as a convenient alternative to involvement in the Iraq War.
> 
> Deployment of the military's Disaster Assistance Response Team, or DART, to tsunami-ravaged Sri Lanka was debated for a critical week, largely because it wasn't considered cost-effective, before a decision was made to send it.
> 
> Canada25's recommendations for the military were part of a larger document addressing the role of Canada in the world that was assembled after interviews with 400 young Canadians, followed by a national forum.
> 
> It comes as the federal government enters the final stages of a foreign policy and defence review that aims to map the country's international role for the next quarter-century. Among the report's other suggestions:
> 
> -Transform government departments and agencies, including Foreign Affairs, which it says should be recast as a "smaller, nimbler" agency that co-ordinates rather implements foreign policy.
> 
> -Cultivate a model relationship with the United States, enhance global markets, foster environmental sustainability and develop networks of health-care expertise worldwide.
> 
> The report says Canada should identify, focus on and encourage the specific strengths of its armed forces.
> 
> "If our unique strengths are known - domestically and internationally - our allies will know how we can most effectively contribute to routine and unforeseeable security missions," it says.
> 
> "This would make our decision-making process more predictable to our allies as well as provide Canadian policy-makers and the public with a tool to assess requests for deployment."
> 
> The report emphasizes that the military's equipment and training must be "world-class" in order for it to fit seamlessly into multinational coalitions.
> 
> And it must develop niche capabilities and specializations, such as post-conflict reconstruction, so that it can add value to those missions, says the report.
> 
> At the same time, it says Canada cannot neglect its combat capability, specifically citing the significant niche roles played by Canadian snipers and special forces during the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan in 2002.
> 
> The report also suggests the RCMP and comparable forces in allied countries develop an international police force capable of intervening where a traditional military presence is not needed.
> 
> "Not only might such a force be cheaper to deploy, it might also free up traditional peacekeeping forces resources, enabling them to be deployed where they are most needed."
> 
> Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, the deputy commander of NATO's Kabul force for six months ending last year, said there needs to be more exchange of the kind that the Canada25 report generated during a Monday forum at Foreign Affairs.
> 
> "Canada25's proposals are worthy of some really serious study," said Leslie, currently engaged in doctoral studies at Royal Military College.
> 
> "It's an internationalist point of view. They're talking about a more activist Canada, taking care of our own security first but as well focusing our efforts overseas where we think it will make a difference."
> 
> Prime Minister Paul Martin has already committed to 5,000 additional troops, whose primary role would be overseas duties.
> 
> At the forum, Robert Greenhill, a foreign policy analyst who conducted a project based on interviews with 40 leading thinkers worldwide, said experts feel Canada has virtually "disappeared" from the world stage militarily.
> 
> Canada's military currently constitutes about two per cent of UN-approved deployed forces, said Greenhill, whose External Voices Project was done for the Canadian Institute of International Affairs.
> 
> "It has declined from us being a modest but important player to being virtually insignificant, particularly in peacekeeping and peace enforcement," he said.
> 
> "Today, we have fewer professionals on the front line than Doctors Without Borders."
> 
> Military experts told him Canada should develop a rapid-insertion force in the form of a self-contained mobile brigade, an idea that is already taking root in government and military circles in Ottawa.



http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=canada_home&articleID=1825803

[Edited to remove noise (like "Learn how to use eBay") and make reading easier]


----------



## George Wallace

Here is an easier to read version:



Forces should maintain combat capability while developing specialty: report



OTTAWA (CP) - Canada's armed forces should maintain their combat capability while developing specialized expertise in postwar reconstruction, says a report by a group reflecting the views of young Canadians. 
The military must be prepared for multinational peace operations as well as unforeseen threats to the country's "interests, values and security," says Canada25, a think-tank representing Canadians between 20 and 35 years old. The federal government needs to develop a military deployment strategy that is transparent and predictable, says the group's report, From Middle Power to Model Power: Recharging Canada's Role in the World. 

"For each mission, our allies, the public, and our troops need to know - as far ahead as possible - what we are getting into, what we will do, and when we will get out," says the 116-page document. 

"The federal government should immediately articulate clear intervention criteria for both multilateral peace operations and for deployments to defend against unforeseen threats." 

The non-profit, non-partisan group, founded in Toronto in 2001, is financially supported by universities, private corporations and Foreign Affairs. 

Ottawa's military deployment strategy has been largely seat-of-the-pants in recent years. 

The military's current role with the NATO peacemaking force in Kabul was seen by many as a convenient alternative to involvement in the Iraq War. 

Deployment of the military's Disaster Assistance Response Team, or DART, to tsunami-ravaged Sri Lanka was debated for a critical week, largely because it wasn't considered cost-effective, before a decision was made to send it. 

Canada25's recommendations for the military were part of a larger document addressing the role of Canada in the world that was assembled after interviews with 400 young Canadians, followed by a national forum. 

It comes as the federal government enters the final stages of a foreign policy and defence review that aims to map the country's international role for the next quarter-century. Among the report's other suggestions: 

-Transform government departments and agencies, including Foreign Affairs, which it says should be recast as a "smaller, nimbler" agency that co-ordinates rather implements foreign policy. 

-Cultivate a model relationship with the United States, enhance global markets, foster environmental sustainability and develop networks of health-care expertise worldwide. 

The report says Canada should identify, focus on and encourage the specific strengths of its armed forces. 

"If our unique strengths are known - domestically and internationally - our allies will know how we can most effectively contribute to routine and unforeseeable security missions," it says. 

"This would make our decision-making process more predictable to our allies as well as provide Canadian policy-makers and the public with a tool to assess requests for deployment." 

The report emphasizes that the military's equipment and training must be "world-class" in order for it to fit seamlessly into multinational coalitions. 

And it must develop niche capabilities and specializations, such as post-conflict reconstruction, so that it can add value to those missions, says the report. 

At the same time, it says Canada cannot neglect its combat capability, specifically citing the significant niche roles played by Canadian snipers and special forces during the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan in 2002. 

The report also suggests the RCMP and comparable forces in allied countries develop an international police force capable of intervening where a traditional military presence is not needed. 

"Not only might such a force be cheaper to deploy, it might also free up traditional peacekeeping forces resources, enabling them to be deployed where they are most needed." 

Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, the deputy commander of NATO's Kabul force for six months ending last year, said there needs to be more exchange of the kind that the Canada25 report generated during a Monday forum at Foreign Affairs. 

"Canada25's proposals are worthy of some really serious study," said Leslie, currently engaged in doctoral studies at Royal Military College. 

"It's an internationalist point of view. They're talking about a more activist Canada, taking care of our own security first but as well focusing our efforts overseas where we think it will make a difference." 

Prime Minister Paul Martin has already committed to 5,000 additional troops, whose primary role would be overseas duties. 

At the forum, Robert Greenhill, a foreign policy analyst who conducted a project based on interviews with 40 leading thinkers worldwide, said experts feel Canada has virtually "disappeared" from the world stage militarily. 

Canada's military currently constitutes about two per cent of UN-approved deployed forces, said Greenhill, whose External Voices Project was done for the Canadian Institute of International Affairs. 

"It has declined from us being a modest but important player to being virtually insignificant, particularly in peacekeeping and peace enforcement," he said. 

"Today, we have fewer professionals on the front line than Doctors Without Borders." 

Military experts told him Canada should develop a rapid-insertion force in the form of a self-contained mobile brigade, an idea that is already taking root in government and military circles in Ottawa.


----------



## George Wallace

Soooo.........has the wheel made a full turn and we are bringing back the SSF?

GW


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I caught the last end of a special done on the Airborne and Min of Def said there is no current plan on re-establishing them however they are going to expand the role of the JTF.
P.S.  I believe it when I see it.  Martin's own senators have been telling him and Jean they need to spend more on the military in the past couple of years and have studies to back it up.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks for tidying up the presentation George.

CFL both you and GW could be right.  I don't think we will ever see an Airborne unit, or even a Parachute unit.  However the SSF was more than the Airborne.  It was also 1 RCR IIRC and was essentially a mini-rapid reaction brigade.

They could still square the circle and get Martin his 4th Brigade by Grouping the LIBs and maybe standing up some additional support elements.  We've already had lots of speculation about that possibility at this site.

But like you, seeing's believing.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Why not make 3 Rapid self contained BG?  Well I guess I'll answer my own question and say money.  $$ to tpt troops and kit, buy additional kit and supplies etc.


----------



## Kirkhill

In the absence of better information CFL, it's all possible.

Cheers.


----------



## a_majoor

I'm sure the Minister of Finance and various groups who's livelihood are based around feeding from the Government trough are searching for a powerful herbicide right now to kill those annoying roots......


----------



## Kirkhill

Such a cynic, Arthur, such a cynic.


----------



## Big Bad John

Sounds a lot like 3 Commando Brigade in the UK to me.


----------



## Kirkhill

Wouldn't be a bad role model.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

wouldn't be bad for morale either as its something to strive for that isn't as lofty a goal as the JTF.


----------



## Big Bad John

In todays Ottawa Citizen.   It sounds as if someone is pushing the idea politically.

*Canada 'virtually insignificant' on world stage
Swift peacekeeping brigade the only way to restore lost lustre, panel says*
Mike Blanchfield 
The Ottawa Citizen; with files from The Canadian Press 
Tuesday, January 25, 2005

A major study of politicians, diplomats and thinkers from Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America has concluded that Canada has become an irrelevant force on the international stage, but can regain its edge if it creates a swift and mobile brigade of peacekeepers.

Although the world appreciates Canada's military contributions to the Balkans and Afghanistan, we are seen as a bit player in bringing peace to war-torn parts of the world. As one respondent said: "For all intents and purposes you are no longer here."

Robert Greenhill, a former president of Montreal's Bombardier Inc. and author of the study on Canada's role in the world, called the results "sobering." Mr. Greenhill spent the last six months interviewing 40 experts from across the globe in what is believed to be one of the most high-level surveys of foreign figures on Canada's role in the world. It was sponsored by the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, a non-profit, non-governmental organization headquartered in Toronto.

Survey subjects included former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger, former Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans, and a host of other politicians from Asia, Europe, Africa, as well as economists, military experts, scholars and senior bureaucrats.

Titled External Voices, the study is to be made public next month and will coincide with the Martin government's international policy review.

In a presentation yesterday to a government and diplomatic audience at Foreign Affairs, and in an interview with the Citizen, Mr. Greenhill gave a preview of the study's main findings.

Not surprisingly, Canada's international influence is seen as waning in the decade and a half since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War.

Many respondents cited the 1989-92 period under Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, who fought against apartheid in South Africa, and the late 1990s tenure of former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy, who spearheaded the international ban on landmines, as the only recent periods when Canada made a difference on the world stage.

But the international community does not want it to stay that way, Mr. Greenhill added in the interview.

"Everybody from the Africans to the Americans to the Europeans said Canada having an autonomous mobile brigade that could actually get into tough regions quickly and be there for a couple of months at a time, would make a huge difference," he said.

"First, is that few people can do it today. Secondly, those who can, like the Americans and British, are often seen as compromised politically. Whereas Canada coming in with the Maple Leaf, with civility, is seen as very useful."

Mr. Greenhill said Canada is also seen as having the potential to play a "very special role" in post-conflict reconstruction.

Mr. Greenhill said the recent controversy over the delayed deployment of the military's Disaster Assistance Response Team to Sri Lanka following the Indian Ocean tsunami illustrates the problems facing Canada's ability to respond to international crises.

"It took us ages to get there and then it was useful," he said.

Canada's military currently constitutes about two per cent of UN-approved deployed forces, said Mr. Greenhill

"It has declined from us being a modest but important player to being virtually insignificant, particularly in peacekeeping and peace enforcement," he said.

About one-third of respondents said Canada could use some heavy airlift capability -- large transport planes that only the U.S. and British military own -- but two-thirds said Canada could make due hitching rides with its larger allies or renting commercially as it does now.


[Edited to make reading easier & remove unused space]


----------



## McG

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Military experts told him *Canada should develop a rapid-insertion force in the form of a self-contained mobile brigade*, *an idea that is already taking root in government and military circles in Ottawa.*
> 
> 
> 
> Christmas? Or just Santa Claus?
Click to expand...

If this idea "took root" prior to the election, it could have been the source of the "peacekeeping brigade" promise.


----------



## FEEOP042

We don't need more unit's lets man the units we have now to the strengh they should be at. My unit has 2 FD Sqn's with maybe a full 36 pers troop in each sqn. The support sqn has maybe half a troops worth of troops in it. We can not support any real operation with the numbers we have now. We have troops going on tours 2 or 3 times to the same place. It is like a veh with a low tire pressure you fill it up to the right pressure it will run smoothly. And yes we should have never disbanded the Airborne Regiment.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

When they say "accepted in government" they must be referring to the Senate members.

Every Liberal Cabinet member I've seen is of the Lloyd Axworthy ilk where "we don't need to have a military to be a positive influence."   I watched him interviewed a couple of weeks ago on TV and paraphrasing to the best of my ability he said "Look at the example of the Landmines Treaty.   We've already saved 20,000 lives since it was signed.   That is an example of what Canada can do with moral leadership.".

That's when I got up, went to the washroom and threw up....



Matthew.     :


----------



## Long in the tooth

DND could create a Virtual Peacekeeping Brigade by simply adding another box under the 1 Cdn Div org chart in Kingston.  This would be right beside the DART and above the fourth rifle company in the infantry battalions.


----------



## a_majoor

The wierd thing is the "virtual" units seem to have "real" headquarters....


----------



## jmacleod

Canada does not need "Peacekeepers" - Canada needs soldiers, members of the Canadian Army
who, including training in the various skills expected and anticipated in a modern combat focused
military force, could undertake the role of peace enforcement, and securing the subsequent
"peace". I think it was MGEN Lewis MacKenzie who said essentially the same thing at a Board
of Trade meeting in Toronto several years ago. I was impressed by former Defence Minister
David Pratt MP, who when requested in writing to support the revival of the CAR, replied in
significant detail, of future plans for parachute capability (essentially what currently exists) and
no forseeable plan to revive the famous Regiment, (which should never have been disbanded;
another story) - a candid and unusual reply from a Federal cabinet minister. but like many members
of Parliament, even at cabinet level, not in the inner circle. MacLeod


----------



## 2FERSapper

well this just seems like yet another political game. About 4 or 5 yrs ago i heard politicans speak of how their parties if elected would put money back into your forces buying new equipment bla bla bla. This game is well rehersed in Canada. I agree with the others who said we should concentrate on getting the brigades we have now up to their proper strenghts. Once we actully have the #'s were supposed to have then start worrying about this ne brigade. And if they do make it it will be intresting were it would be placed. which area would have to give uo resources, and tours b/c there are 2 reg force brigades in the area. Way to many problems and it really does look like the same old hollow promise


----------



## 043

FEEOP042 said:
			
		

> We don't need more unit's lets man the units we have now to the strengh they should be at. My unit has 2 FD Sqn's with maybe a full 36 pers troop in each sqn. The support sqn has maybe half a troops worth of troops in it. We can not support any real operation with the numbers we have now. We have troops going on tours 2 or 3 times to the same place. It is like a veh with a low tire pressure you fill it up to the right pressure it will run smoothly. And yes we should have never disbanded the Airborne Regiment.



My troop in 24 Fd Sqn has 43 pers in it.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

How about we get back on to the topic.


----------



## Zipper

If that is what that allocation of money is truly for, then it is either a farce, or yet another bit of smoke blown up our collective asses.

I'd be surprised if that money makes it past ND HQ and their latest "committee" to study how to fix the Ill's of the forces. This of course will require the hiring of more staff and another General or 2.

Thus the idea of it being self-contained is rather non-productive. If they did approach it as such, then it would be full of police officers and aid workers.


----------



## McG

It sounds like the US would also like to see a Tier 2 light Bde:



> *U.S. wants Canada to create strike force*
> ROBERT FIFE and ANNE DAWSON
> CanWest News Service
> OTTAWA
> Printed in the Edmonton Journal, 04 Feb 05
> 
> Canada can â Å“punch above its weightâ ? on the global stage, but it must pour money into intelligence gathering, create a rapid-reaction strike force and buy heavy-lift aircraft to transport elite soldiers to world trouble spots, says U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci.   With a boost in defence spending expected in the federal budget, Cellucci said Canada's 55,000-member military needs to be reshaped to battle terrorist threats, confront ethic cleansing and help out in national disasters.
> 
> Washington would like Canada to beef up its elite JTF2 special forces and establish a Canadian strike force that could deploy anywhere in the world on short notice.   â Å“A Level 2 special forces would give Canada the ability to have troops that could be quickly deployed to troubled spots whether it is Haiti or whether it is the tsunami where people needed help right away,â ? Cellucci said in a wide ranging exclusive interview with Can-West News Service.
> 
> Cellucci did not say how many soldiers the U.S. would like to see in a strike force, but experts have said Canada should be able to commit a self-contained brigade-size unit of about 4,000 soldiers to any rapid-reaction force. In fact, the Liberal government has committed to recruiting an additional 5,000 full-time troops and the Defence Department is in the process of doubling the size of the Joint Task Force 2 ranks to an estimated 600 troops from 300 counter-terrorism commandos.
> 
> ...
> 
> Cellucd also had high praise for Canadian troops in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...



On the notion of "self-contained" brigades, didn't we have those before the Fd Ambs were cut to a new CoC and prior to the decision to merge the Svc Bns with the GS Bns under area command?


----------



## Zipper

What dear Mr. cellucci says is fine. And Yes, we did have these capabilities at one time before they were chopped.

However I would prefer that we did what was best for us, and not what those to the south of us would like. It sounds to much like dictation for their intersts as opposed to ours.

As well, I still question how we're going to double the size of our JTF (Did I say how much I hate that name?) when we have such a small pool of highly trained personal to draw upon to take us to this next level.

Also, the purposes of these 5000 more personal are going to be in question with the coming retirements of many of our existing soldiers. Do we try to make a "self contained force" and ignore the needs of the rest of the military? Or do we use these 5000 to fill in the spots that are so lacking already? 

Who can tell.


----------



## McG

I believe growth is in our own interest, and I think we could benefit from a light brigade.



			
				Zipper said:
			
		

> Also, the purposes of these 5000 more personal are going to be in question with the coming retirements of many of our existing soldiers. Do we try to make a "self contained force" and ignore the needs of the rest of the military? Or do we use these 5000 to fill in the spots that are so lacking already?


You seem mixed-up on this point.   We are not recruiting 5,000 new individuals.   The army's ceiling of full time soldiers will be increased by 5,000 (in the end we may go through 8,000 recruits to meet this number).   We will recruit to replace retiring soldiers concurrently to recruiting to fill 5,000 new positions.


----------



## Zipper

Ah...

Then I am wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. 

Now the question is...        ...How do we recruit those extra numbers when we cannot even recruit up to our current strength at present? Incentives? Maybe some TV shows that highlight the military rather then tear it apart? Maybe some new equipment to excite and instill confidence? Or how about some decent leadership? 

Ah the list could go on and on.


----------



## McG

Zipper said:
			
		

> Now the question is... ...How do we recruit those extra numbers when we cannot even recruit up to our current strength at present?


Good question.  I've picked it up in a new thread.


----------



## bossi

S_Baker said:
			
		

> I am not sure why the talk of a 5000 pers. peackeeping Brigade?   Why not have a brigade of true warfighters (with equipment) that can do multiple missions?



Shhhh ... Quiet!
(... or you'll ruin our deception plan ... "Oh, sorry, PM - it must have been that bad connection we had on the cell phone ... I could have sworn you said 'peace-making' brigade ... Oh, well ... too late now ... so, how do you like our new Joint Mobility Brigade ... cool choppers and landing craft, eh ... ?")


----------



## Todd614

I have heard some rumours about Gen Hillier's vision of the 5,000 new soldiers. I heard that he wants to start moving on creating a new brigade in Gagetown right away. Could anyone do some rumour busting for me, or direct me to the applicable links?


----------



## Zipper

I doubt we will know until after the budget and the review.

However if he does make a "new" force with the 5000, he'll be in a world of hurt considering the rest of the forces are so under strength. Those 5000 (over time) would be better used filling in the gaps of retirements and bringing the units back up to something close to operational strength.


----------



## Kirkhill

As I have suggested before - there is a "cake and eat it" solution here.

1,2 VP + LdSH(RC) = 1 CBG
1,2 RCR + RCD = 2 CBG
1,2R22eR + 12RBC = 5 GBC

3 RCR + 3 VP + 3 R22eR + 1 Sqn RCD = 4 CLtBG 
CFJOG+CFCSG+4ESR+4RCA for CC and Support.

Same number of units, raised to effective strength. Paul gets his fourth brigade.


----------



## Zipper

Oh, if it were only true. 

Lets wait and see if the penny pinchers see it the same way.


----------



## TCBF

Okay, there will be no new Bde, and that is old news (last fall).
There is no room to put a Bde with 1,2, or 5 Bde, we lost the bases for 4 Bde when we pulled out of Lahr/Baden in 1993, and we lost the base for 3 Bde when it was disbanded in the late 60s, CAS/CTC took over Gagetown.

The 5000 will go to fill in the holes in our present org.  We don't need new units.  We need new soldiers to fill them up.  

Or do you want to spend half a billion dollars or more building infrastructure in Gagetown and hiring another huge chunk of office workers?

Tom


----------



## Zipper

So we have thus 2 simple Bde's to look forward too? I'd be surprised if we got one up to strength. 

Another reason why I think we should down grade our CDS to M. Gen level and all the rest. Since we cannot even field a Division on paper, and by the looks of it we'll be down to fielding battle groups only, which means we only need someone to command the Bde.

Sigh.

I'm be watching the budget tomorrow with a lot of interest.


----------



## Kirkhill

Darn Zipper - I hope you remember to INhale from time to time.

All this sighing going on I'm afraid for your health.  Too much may lead to oxygen deprivation.  ;D


----------



## Zipper

LOL! Good one Kirk.

I meant to say Lt. Gen, but oh well.

How about that budget? I haven't checked to see if there is a separate thread or not, but I'll get there.

Encouraging.


----------



## Kirkhill

Encouraging right enough.

Next up defence review and international policy review then we should have a pretty good picture as to where they are headed.

Not unhappy here


----------



## Zipper

I will say that I am a little scared about the foriegn policy review. The way they worded it last night (the defense minister was on CBC), the new policy is "all new" which means we are going in a whole different direction by the sounds of it. 

Why does that send chills down my spine?

Are we looking at yet another softening of our military (hence all LAV's) role in the world?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Zipper said:
			
		

> I will say that I am a little scared about the foriegn policy review. The way they worded it last night (the defense minister was on CBC), the new policy is "all new" which means we are going in a whole different direction by the sounds of it.
> 
> Why does that send chills down my spine?
> 
> Are we looking at yet another softening of our military (hence all LAV's) role in the world?



What scared me was in Goodale's speech.   He directly quoted Jennifer Welsh in saying, in the penultimate sentence of his budget speech, that: _â ?... A confident people, respected and trusted as model citizens of the world.â ?_

That model citizen idea is pure Welsh and if it is being inserted into ministers' speeches then it means that she has won the battle with the banal, boring bureaucrats and our 'new' foreign policy will have _pizzazz_!   As I have said elsewhere I prefer thoughts and ideas to _pizzazz_, but then I'm concerned with protecting ands promoting Canada's vital interests in the world, not re-electing the Liberal Party of Canada's latest 'team.'

Welsh is not, totally, against building bigger, better forces but she has some pretty firm ideas about what roles _new, improved_ armed forces might play, for example, this is a contribution she made to one of DFAIT's ongoing policy discourses:



> *Model citizen*
> 
> I introduced this idea of the model citizen because I was becoming increasingly frustrated with the idea of Canada as a middle power. It wasn't working for me as a touchstone for my own thinking about Canada's role in the world, but I also think it wasn't providing an inspiration for Canadians about their country's role in the world. I developed the idea of the model citizen out of alternative visions for Canada that we might engage in, in a post 911 world. There's a model of Canada that says Canadian foreign relations should effectively be about Canada-US relations, that that's where our destiny lies. There's a vision of Canada that is Canada as the "new Norway", the lean mean Scandinavian country that brokers peace agreements, that tries to play a niche role in the international system. There's a view of Canada as a wielder of soft power in the international system, often associated with the Axworthy years. And I think I draw a bit from that last concept, but I increasingly think a huge aspect of Canadian foreign policy is simply being what we are, which is a highly successful model of a liberal democracy. And that has a foreign policy function, because it is an incubator of ideas, of models, of experiments in nation-building for other countries around the world. So that's one aspect of modeling.
> 
> I use the model citizen and the word "model" as a verb as well. "To model". Not on the cat walk, but on the idea that you model for someone else, you demonstrate, you assist, you instruct. Not necessarily imposing and providing the answer, but helping someone else help themselves. And I see this as a bit of an analogy for what Canada might do in state building and state reconstruction. Again, that's a slightly different approach from what you might see coming out of the United States, it's probably slightly more akin to the European approach to reconstruction. But it is also very uniquely Canadian. We have our unique niche to play. My own view is that Canada's value-added on state building can be in the area of rule of law and issues related to building a judiciary, a functioning Charter, a civilian police force. When I think of where we have expertise, that would be a major area.
> 
> The citizen idea, if I can just say a word about that, really comes from viewing the global space as a community with citizens in it. And that Canada will rarely act alone or independently, but will be contributing alongside others - much as a private model citizen might do. So I try to get across this idea in the book of both citizenship and modelling as a way of thinking of Canada.
> 
> *Using the Model Citizen Concept to Engage Canadians*
> 
> I think what it does is that it can provide two things. First of all, it can provide a sounding board - does this seem right to you as a way of thinking about our country, or do you have another vision of Canada that you want to engage against this one? I think it's always useful to have a vision out there or an idea out there that people can react to and mold themselves. But I think, secondly, the reason why it's useful is that it's a very participatory concept. Model citizen suggests that you are engaging ordinary citizens as well in your foreign policy.
> 
> This step needs to come first. We talk about our values and interests being so important to what we do in the world, but before you can articulate those, you have to have a sense of what you are, and who you are. So it's a nice way for Canadians to engage in that thinking process - "what do we want to be?". And then your interests and your values flow from that. But this primary discussion is very important.
> 
> *Multilateral Institutions*
> 
> I think in a sense the Iraq war shone a spotlight on some of the challenges of our multilateral system. I'll mention three of them. The first challenge is that they are very slow moving in their decision-making. We're seeing this now also over Darfour. Because the systems   have developed consensus decision-making, it's very hard to get quick results. As you see in a crisis like Darfour, or even Rwanda, that is just not good enough if you actually want to be able to respond to things that are happening.
> 
> The second problem with our multilateral institutions is that they are increasingly being seen as illegitimate, as secretive, as operating according to one code in private, and another code in public. They are not necessarily representative of all the parts of the world; they are influenced by petty politics and aren't generating the outcomes people would like to see.
> 
> The last problem facing multilateral institutions is the challenge that the United States poses. How do you manage a multilateral system when you have one very powerful state? I would argue this isn't a new problem, but it's a particular configuration of that problem.
> 
> Those are some of the issues facing multilateral institutions. I think some of the solutions lie most obviously with reform: thinking about a different membership for some of our key bodies, like the United Nations. Also investigating leaner decision-making procedures, actually segmenting the type of problems that come to foreign organizations - where certain issues would require full consensus, others you might be able to move with a subset of players in the organization to allow us to respond more rapidly to some of these crises.
> 
> I think the last problem is in a way the hardest to solve. But there is a solution for it, and that is to reengage the United States in the multilateral system by reminding the United States of why multilateralism is important and can work. It is to demonstrate that it's a way for the United States to minimize risk, to share burdens. That's an incredibly pragmatic argument to be making, especially in the current environment. Multilateralism is way of sharing the spotlight when things go bad, but also when things go well, and of sharing the burden. For a super power that has interests all over the world and doesn't have unlimited resources, that burden-sharing message might be a way of reengaging the United States.



In her recent book she praises the _niche_ role which, she says, Norway plays in the Western Alliance and suggests that Canada should not, indeed, perhaps cannot have _general purpose_ combat forces.

I am not opposed to all or even most of Welsh's ideas; but I hope that her views will be balanced by those of the banal, boring bureaucrats, including the uniformed bureaucrats (_heavily armed civilians_ as Evelyn Waugh dubbed the military HQ staff) led by Rick Hillier.


----------



## big bad john

Zipper said:
			
		

> I will say that I am a little scared about the foreign policy review. The way they worded it last night (the defense minister was on CBC), the new policy is "all new" which means we are going in a whole different direction by the sounds of it.
> 
> Why does that send chills down my spine?
> 
> Are we looking at yet another softening of our military (hence all LAV's) role in the world?


Any time I hear the words Politician and review, I start to perspire.  And they say the enemy is the terrs.  lol


----------



## Kirkhill

> In her recent book she praises the niche role which, she says, Norway plays in the Western Alliance and suggests that Canada should not, indeed, perhaps cannot have general purpose combat forces.



I've said it before and I'll say it again ;D

If we put into defence and foreign aid proportionately what the Norwegians put in then I would not be unhappy.  With their level of funding we would currently have about a 23 BCAD defence budget and a 7.9 BCAD aid budget (1.9% and 0.665% of GDP respectively) - CIA world fact book 2003 data and today's exchange rate USD to CAD.

Please dear lord, let us be like Norway - niche would have a whole different meaning with budgets like that.

Cheers,


----------



## Zipper

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Please dear lord, let us be like Norway - niche would have a whole different meaning with budgets like that.





> There's a vision of Canada that is Canada as the "new Norway", the lean mean Scandinavian country that brokers peace agreements, that tries to play a niche role in the international system.



I agree with this to a point. Norway has many less people then we do and is not (I think) a member of the G-8. So their economy cannot play anything BUT a niche roll.

We are capable of spending more on our military and still be able to have our social programs (like Norway). But we are going to have to get away from this idea that must have lower taxes. We cannot have our cake and eat it too. We either drop the social programs and become more like the States (shudder), or we raise taxes (and like it) and be able to fund our military like the Scandinavian counties who in essence have their cake, and nibble too.

Otherwise. I'm afraid of the new "review" as I said.


----------



## Kirkhill

I has one eighth the number of people we do. (Make that one seventh)

It is not a member of the G8, nor a member of the EU.   It is a member of NATO.   

When I say that we SHOULD try to emulate Norway I mean that in its entirety.   Norway only commits NICHE forces to its international alliances.   Its forces first and foremost are designed to defend Norway.   While they have reduced in size since 1989 and reorg'd since 9/11 the current structure looks like this:

Army - Peacetime - 15,000 (CE = Canadian equivalent based on a 4.5M population vs a 32M population - 107,000)
Army - Mobilized     - 89,000 (CE 632,000)

Navy/Coast Guard - Peacetime - 8,000 (CE 57,000)
Navy/Coast Guard - Mobilized - 22,000 (CE 156,000)

Air Force - Peacetime - 7200 (CE 50,000)
Air Force - Mobilized -   20,000(CE 142,000)

Homeguard(Militia) - Peacetime - 600 (CE 4200)
Homeguard(Militia) - Mobilized - 83,000 (CE 590,000)

The Army operates Leos, M109s, M113s, CV90s and Bv206s as well as Helos

The Navy owns 3 Frigates and 6 subs as well as 14 Fast Patrol Boats (multiply by 7 to get to an equivalent Canadian Number = 21 Frigates, 42 Subs, 100 Fast Patrol Boats) 
The Coast Guard Operates some 20 Patrol Vessels, some of which are Ice-Strengthened - CE = 140

The Air Force operates 6 Orions, like us supporting 42 CP140s,     6 Hercs (again 42 CE) and 58 F16s (406 Cdn Equivs)

And all of this capability is done on a budget just a little over twice ours.

Or putting this another way - they have a peacetime establishment equivalent to us supporting 240,000 bodies and in war we would have to be able to mobilize 1,500,000 people to match them.

http://www.mil.no/languages/english/start/
http://www.atlanterhavskomiteen.no/publikasjoner/andre/i-tekster/20.htm
http://odin.dep.no/fd/engelsk/aktuelt/taler/statsraad_a/010051-990115/dok-bn.html

Again I say - dear lord let us be like Norway - in fact send the Norwegian Ministry of Defence over here would you


----------



## Zipper

Jeez I like raising issues and then letting Kirk or Majoor do all the homework. I love you guys... :blotto:

So with that comparison made. Where does the CAF stand now? It would be nice to compare those numbers above with what we have now.


----------



## R031button

I think you guys are forgetting one key thing about Norway; conscription. I've talked to someinternational students from Norway; they sptent one year serving at the equivilant to $30 a day; this is in a country with a minimum wage of $20 an hour (before good old socialist taxes of course). I don't think anyone here wants to be in that perticular kind of a military.


----------



## Kirkhill

No, not many Canadians would like to be in a military like that.  From what I can gather it seems not many Canadians would like to be in any military .

On the other hand consider conscription as a "tax contribution in kind" or if you prefer "sweat equity".  One way or another the Norwegian economy pays for that size of defence establishment.  For the average Norwegian male it is comparable to forgoing a year of wages.

If Canadians don't like the thought of actively defending their country themselves then they could pony up the equivalent cash to hire somebody else to do the work for them.

With conscription in Norway they funnel 1.9% of their GDP into defence.  Without conscription it would be some what higher.

Either way the Norwegians invest more into their Armed Forces than we do and get a lot more out of their investment.


----------



## Kirkhill

As to the comparison:

Canada 1.1% of GDP      Norway 1.9%
Canada 13 BCAD               Norway (as Canada) 22 BCAD
Canada 82,000 Civilians and Regs            Norway (as Canada) 214,000 Civilians and Regs
Canada 22,000 Reserves and Militia       Norway (as Canada) ~1,300,000 Reserves and Militia (590,000 Homeguard Militia and the remainder Reserves)

Canada 16 Auroras                  Norway (as Canada)    42 P3 Orions
Canada 32 Hercs                     Norway (as Canada)      42 Hercs
Canada ~80 CF188s               Norway (as Canada)    406 F16s
Canada almost 3 subs            Norway (as Canada)    42 subs
Canada 16 DDH/CPF               Norway (as Canada)    21 frigates going towards 35

Etc............

look up the tanks, guns, apcs etc and do the math.....

Cheers.


----------



## pbi

> In her recent book she praises the niche role which, she says, Norway plays in the Western Alliance and suggests that Canada should not, indeed, perhaps cannot have general purpose combat forces.



I have not read the book, but IMHO this is not an accurate description of NO forces: they are most definitely "general puropse combat forces": all of the combat functions are present in their land, sea and air forces, and they are quite capable of conventional combat on their own soil. What the NO forces are not, again IMHO (but with some experience...) is "expeditionary": there is no really significant NO tradition of military ops outside the homeland except for fairly low-risk UN ops (until recently in Afgh). 

I am a foe of "niche" forces: that is to say forces that are only tailored to deliver a certain circumscribed or incomplete set of combat capabilities, or are only designed to function in a very particular geographic or operational situation. I believe that we have no way of predicting 100% accurately exactly what will be asked of us in the future, or when, or where. Therefore, while we may not posess the"Cadillac" degree of capability in each combat function, we must IMHO posess eaxh function itself. I am particularly concerned to see the apparent disappearance of air defence from "Shield": as the French learned in Cote d'Ivoire, and as the increasing use of UAVs indicates, one can never be sure there will be no air threat.

Cheers


----------



## Edward Campbell

Thanks, pbi.   I haven't seen the Norwegians since the days of AMF(L) and the CAST 'brigade,' but what you say squares with my own recollections.

I enjoyed Kirkhill's Norway/Canada side-by-sides but it is important to bear in mind that Norway _grew up_ in a rough neighbourhood, with Nazi Germany as a conqueror and Stalinist Russia as a neighbour.   A strong, popular (or _populist_ if you prefer) focus on home defence is, probably, natural for Norway and, since 1917, unnatural for Canada â â€œ it's been a long, long time since we last hear _â ?Fifty-four forty or fight!â ?_ from our neighbours.

My personal preference, in recent years, has been to use an idea I stole, quite shamelessly, from a Patricia: Kent Foster.   I argue that we may not, probably should not be in the military _major leagues_ but, given that by any sensible measures of 'power' we are, now, in the world's _top ten_ and, even after China and India (and maybe Brazil and one or two others, too) elbow their ways into the _big leagues_, will remain in the global top 10%, we are not playing in the _sandlot_ leagues either.   We should be, I argue, a _Triple A_ nation and we need (and this is the bit I lifted from Kent Foster) _Tripe A_ armed forces:

1.	Appropriate for one of the world top nations â â€œ able to protect and promote our vital interests on the global scene;

2.	Available whenever and wherever needed â â€œ this points to the requirements for strategic 'lift' and _sustainability_; and

3.	Adaptable, because the planners â â€œ PCO, DFAIT and DND â â€œ always get it wrong.   (I know, I was one!).

To me that means: general purpose, not _niche_.

As a bonus, we should add one more 'A' for Affordable.


----------



## a_majoor

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> I enjoyed Kirkhill's Norway/Canada side-by-sides but it is important to bear in mind that Norway _grew up_ in a rough neighbourhood, with Nazi Germany as a conqueror and Stalinist Russia as a neighbour.  A strong, popular (or _populist_ if you prefer) focus on home defence is, probably, natural for Norway and, since 1917, unnatural for Canada â â€œ it's been a long, long time since we last hear _â ?Fifty-four forty or fight!â ?_ from our neighbours.



What our chattering class needs to realize is the "neighbourhood" has grown up around us. Events in the Middle east are "next door", and how long will it take before events in Uzbeckisthan have a direct impact on us?



> My personal preference, in recent years, has been to use an idea I stole, quite shamelessly, from a Patricia: Kent Foster.  I argue that we may not, probably should not be in the military _major leagues_ but, given that by any sensible measures of 'power' we are, now, in the world's _top ten_ and, even after China and India (and maybe Brazil and one or two others, too) elbow their ways into the _big leagues_, will remain in the global top 10%, we are not playing in the _sandlot_ leagues either.  We should be, I argue, a _Triple A_ nation and we need (and this is the bit I lifted from Kent Foster) _Tripe A_ armed forces:
> 
> 1.	Appropriate for one of the world top nations â â€œ able to protect and promote our vital interests on the global scene;
> 
> 2.	Available whenever and wherever needed â â€œ this points to the requirements for strategic 'lift' and _sustainability_; and
> 
> 3.	Adaptable, because the planners â â€œ PCO, DFAIT and DND â â€œ always get it wrong.  (I know, I was one!).
> 
> To me that means: general purpose, not _niche_.
> 
> As a bonus, we should add one more 'A' for Affordable.



This should be the basis for *all * DND planning.


----------



## big bad john

Isn't Canada next door to Russia and China?


----------



## Kirkhill

That's authorized strength as per the CF web site.  Actual strength is 52-55,000 regs

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about/family_e.asp

You know you really do have to learn how to use Google.


As to the aircraft, I think we bought 138 CF188s and we have about 80 runners, 32 C130s and about 19 runnable with about half of them flyable at any one time, 21 CP140/140As  of which IIRC only about 16 are undergoing the refit.

The numbers are close.


----------



## S McKee

Has anyone heard any rumours about the Regt getting back together, or is this just more of "Taylor's Take" on the news?

History repeats itself with airborne regiment


By SCOTT TAYLOR / On Target

LAST TUESDAY, with as much fanfare and advance hype as Prime Minister Paul Martin's wounded minority government could muster, the Liberals' long awaited policy review on Defence and international affairs was made public. 

Initiated back in 2003 when the Liberals governed with a firm majority, the policy review had quickly become the standby response to explain the government's inaction on Defence procurements. 

No matter what shortcomings were revealed in the national press - helicopters, armoured vehicles, uniforms, etc. - the Defence minister of the day simply had to look bored, hold out his hands, and explain in a condescending manner: "We are conducting a full-scale policy review, which is due to be released in the fall of 2004." 

However, by the time that magical date finally came and went, the Liberals had taken a beating at the polls and were left clinging to a fragile minority. Then, Martin's staffers began "leaking" out word to the Ottawa press corps that the review conducted was "unacceptable" and that a complete rewrite was in the works. 

The date of release of the new white paper was pushed back to as late as the spring of 2006. Then along came a series of damaging allegations at the Gomery inquiry. 

With testimony of kickbacks and corruption in the sponsorship scandal, public support for the Liberals plunged and the opposition parties started talking about bringing down the minority government. 

In a desperate attempt to demonstrate to Canadians that his cabinet could still effectively govern (or possibly to deflect attention away from the Gomery inquiry), Paul Martin rushed out the policy review. 

When details of this much-anticipated, two-year blueprint for Canada's national Defence and Foreign Affairs policies was revealed, it was found to be lacking one important criterion: details. 

Despite this, newly appointed Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier was his charming best as he carefully walked the media through the Liberals' proposals. 

As previously outlined at his change of command ceremony, Hillier intends to establish a central command structure to better facilitate operations at home and abroad, purchase ("off the shelf" if possible) vital equipment such as strategic airlift planes and heavy-lift helicopters, and expand the capability of the elite JTF2 commandos. 

It was again announced that the Canadian Forces will recruit an additional 5,000 regular troops and add another 3,000 reservists to their ranks over the next five years. After all of these previously publicized initiatives were reiterated, journalists were left scratching their heads and asking: "So what's new in here?" 

Well, one of the few nuggets of heretofore unannounced "new" developments turns out to be another case of Back to the Future (or of history repeating itself). 

In addition to increasing the manning levels of the JTF2 and adding to its integral combat support, transportation and intelligence capability, General Hillier talked about the establishment of an elite battalion to augment the commandos. 

This new unit would be based on a light infantry battle group, manned with the fittest and most dedicated soldiers, and would need to be highly mobile in order to serve as a rapid reaction force to global hot spots. 

So let's see now. "Light infantry" means no armoured vehicles, and "rapid deployment" would best be facilitated by paratroops. 

In other words, the Liberal government is planning to re-establish the very same airborne regiment it disbanded in disgrace almost exactly 10 years ago. 

After the Canadian Airborne Regiment's disbandment, the army brass maintained a limited airborne capability by forming three separate parachute "jump" companies. 

These were attached to the light battalions of their parent regiments in the Royal Canadian Regiment, the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and the Royal 22nd (Vandoos) Regiment. 

This very same system of far-flung jump companies had been attempted in the 1950s until it was deemed to be "unworkable." The solution was to create a single airborne regiment to fill the hole as Canada's rapid reaction force. 

The more things change ...


----------



## George Wallace

From the article, I would say ST let his imagination get loose on him along a sticky tangent, but not on a wider outlook of things to come.  Perhaps we are headed in an "Air Cav" direction with all those new choppers being mentioned?  Perhaps we are going to create a "Special Recce Force" like the Brits seem to be doing with their SAS; a Force midway between Regular Rifle Infantry and JTF, with other specialized functions, perhaps linquistic or ethnic?  The imagination is not limited to what ST thinks.  The possibilities are endless.....well within reason fiscally.   ;D


----------



## paracowboy

we have ships that don't float, planes that don't fly, tanks that aren't, and can't keep our line troops upmanned and trained, and these clowns are tellin' us we're gettin' an Airborne Regiment again?
Yeah.
We can't keep our trained personnel in conventional line units, and we're going to increase our "SpecOps" units?
Yeah.
We have helos that can't carry a section into battle, and we're gonna get an "Air Cav"?
Yeah.

Call me bitter and jaded, but I ain't buyin' into any of this. Howzabout we focus on re-building our conventional units, Air Force, and Navy to a level where they're effective for more than handin' out toothbrushes first. All this crap is doin', is puttin' a band-aid on a cancer patient.


----------



## McG

paracowboy said:
			
		

> these clowns are tellin' us we're gettin' an Airborne Regiment again?


The only person that seems to have used the term â Å“Airborne Regimentâ ? is Scott Taylor.  Who are the clowns you've gotten so angry with?

It could be that this elite light battalion would be one of the existing light battalions.  I'd still like to see all the light battalions grouped together (as proposed earlier in this thread).  Such a  Cdo Bde would be able to support the SF pers and/or fill traditional light tasks.


----------



## Infanteer

Wouldn't a revived "Commando Unit" be Tier III, equivalent to the US Rangers?


----------



## McG

paracowboy,
You seem angry with the entire defence policy that was issued on 19 Apr 05.  Give it a quick read:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/reports/dps/main/toc_e.asp

Then post your thoughts with the rest of ours:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/29787.0.html

The rest of the CF's problems aside, this light force would be a positive step to our future.


----------



## tomahawk6

It wouldnt take alot to activate the CAR. There are already 3 airborne companies. You would need to stand up replacement companies as well as a CAR HHC and combat support company. If the new unit is to work with JTF then it would need to be based in Ontario. I think this is a positive development.


----------



## paracowboy

MCG said:
			
		

> paracowboy,
> You seem angry with the entire defence policy that was issued on 19 Apr 05.   Give it a quick read:
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/reports/dps/main/toc_e.asp


I am.



> Then post your thoughts with the rest of ours:
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/29787.0.html


 I haven't posted here, because I'd simply be reiterating a lot of other's posts.



> 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.

And it finally sunk in. Did you think I was angry at any of the member's posts? If so (and this is for anyone who thought so, as well) I apologize. Lotta good stuff in both threads, and I wasn't calling any of the members here "clowns", by any stretch of the imagination. If anyone felt so, it wasn't intentional. That ain't the way I work.


----------



## McG

paracowboy said:
			
		

> Did you think I was angry at any of the member's posts?


No.  Just with the Defence Policy.  I've addressed some of your points in that other thread.


----------



## TCBF

Okay troops, here we go again, for the umpteenth time, THERE WILL BE NO NEW PEACEKEEPING BRIGADE.

This info was released at the LFDTS Professional Development Seminar at Gagetown, Nov 2004.

We don't need new buildings with new office workers, we need to fill in the holes in the hollow units and formations that presently exist.  Ottawa realizes this.  

NO NEW BRIGADE!

OK?


----------



## McG

TCBF said:
			
		

> THERE WILL BE NO NEW PEACEKEEPING BRIGADE.


I think it is generally understood that this is the Army's position.  However, this does not mean there will be no new units.  It also does not mean that the creation of a new formation would be an inherently bad idea.


----------



## TCBF

If we stood down an old formation, and replaced it with a new one, that is one thing. But Canada is filled with cadres of people whose sole purpose in life is to ensure Defence spending does not mean Military spending. They would rather build new buildings than hire enough soldiers to fill out the hollow units we have garrisoned  in the buildings we already have.


----------



## Haggis

Ignore the poiticians and the media.  Anyone who's listened to what the CDS is saying will see exactly that.  No new units, enhanced (by numbers and equipment) exisiting units and more depth and breadth given to some units/elements (i.e Reserves). 



			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> THERE WILL BE NO NEW PEACEKEEPING BRIGADE.



Let's put this in perspective:   The "promise" of a peacekeeping brigade was an ELECTION PROMISE.   Regard this the same as promises from the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and the Great Pumpkin.

:'(

Apologies to anyone who still believes in The Bunny, Big Nick or a benevolent Thanksgiving dessert.


----------



## McG

I got the impression, from reading the Defence Policy, that we should expect new units and formations.   Okay, maybe I should not be writing in the plural, but it is in there (pg 13 holds an example).   However, some of this likely will be the re-organization of existing structures.

 . . . and, an Army Bde is not one of the suggested new structures.


----------



## Recce41

OOOO to jump again, with a troop. I'd be one of the first fellos, to but their name in to be the Tp WO, if I can. Not too many of us around. I can only count 5  now WOs that have served in 1st Troop. 2 with JM, 1 with DZ/LZ. 

 :evil: :tank:


----------



## TCBF

Not to many of us around is right. And we ain't getting any younger either.;D

Tom


----------



## Zipper

TCBF said:
			
		

> Not to many of us around is right. And we ain't getting any younger either.;D
> 
> Tom



True. But you are getting crustier... :dontpanic:


----------



## TCBF

Guess they posted me to the right spot!


----------



## Recce41

5hit Tom
 You looked so young in that bath, or may I say pool. 
Dave :evil: :tank:


----------



## TCBF

Ah yes, the famous  6' diameter kiddie pool in the SW OP at Kandahar Airfield.  That photo haunts me still.


----------



## McG

bossi said:
			
		

> Don't ya think that maybe, just maybe ... this [Trenton] might be an intriguing location for the campaign promise of a "new" 5,000 person Joint Brigade (... but, NEVER, EVER, EVER calling it the SSF ...)?


If the light battalions were grouped into a single bde that included all the elements necessary to support light and limited special forces ops, why not stick it in Pet where there is already infrastructure?

2 PPCLI could replace 3 PPCLI (which would move to Pet) in Edmonton, and 2 (or 3) CMBG would split itself between Shilo and Gagetown.  This would leave room for a "2 CLBG" or "SSF" in Pet.  2 RCHA would convert to a light regt to sp the light formation, and 1 RCHA would become responsible to sp 1 CMBG and 2 (or 3) CMBG (possible with the transfer of a sub unit + from 2 RCHA).  2 CER would convert to a light regt, and 4 ESR would be re-established as a CER.


----------



## McG

> CANSOFCOM IS THE RECENTLY ANNOUNCED COMMAND WHICH WILL BRING TOGETHER EXISTING SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES UNDER A UNIFIED COMMAND AS WELL AS DEVELOP FUTURE SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES. ONE OF THESE FUTURE FORCES IS THE JOINT ACTION TASK FORCE. THIS HIGHLY TRAINED AND MOBILE BATTALION SIZED FORCE WILL SUPPORT SPECIAL OPERATIONS ACTIVITIES BOTH DOMESTICALLY AND ABROAD


This JATF would be an excellent 4th manouvre unit in the Li Bde described in this thread.  Additionally, such a grouping would allow for support to be attached from the li fd amb, li engr regt, etc.


----------

