# New Defense White Paper??



## P Kaye (3 Feb 2005)

Does anybody know when the new defense policy white-paper is supposed to be released?  I've been hearing for months that a major review of defense policy is underway, and presumed that the result would be a new white-paper.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Feb 2005)

Where prey tell have you heard of a new white paper being tabled?


----------



## CBH99 (3 Feb 2005)

I think he means the result of the foreign policy and defense review will result in a new white paper.  To answer the question, I can't say in all honesty it will produce a new white paper or not.  Thats the whole point of the review, I guess we'll know when its finished and tabled.


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach (4 Feb 2005)

Technicaly, there had not been any white paper in over 10 Years. For the Airforce, I was at at breifing last year, and they want to purchase a bunch of UAV.


----------



## 043 (4 Feb 2005)

And you're assuming that the Air Force will get the UAV's??? They are a ground asset my friend.


----------



## Guardian (4 Feb 2005)

The question is what type of UAV?

If they're strategic (high-endurance, long-ranged surveillance / strike aircraft) like, say, Global Hawk or Predator, then that would absolutely be their area.

But if they're tactical, then they should be controlled by Army soldiers for the purposes of the commander on the ground. Handicapping him by having to jump through hoops like "service-level agreements" or begging the Air Force to let him have it for a few minutes so he can use it to adjust Arty onto a machine-gun nest that's holding back the advance - that's unnecessary and dangerous....

Besides, White Papers / policy reviews should focus more on desired end states, national objectives, and general capabilities. Which organization within the CF actually gets to use the new toys - is that really a White Paper decision?


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach (4 Feb 2005)

I am only stating what was on that breifing... We are in the process of upgrading the CF-18... Not all Auroras are gonna be Upgraded, we will eventually look at Herc replacement, and we are presently in the process of evaluating, and eventually purchasing UAVs.  They are looking at, at least 2 new types of UAVs.  

Thats all...


----------



## P Kaye (4 Feb 2005)

Are we going to buy any of the JSF?  We apparently would get a big discount since we're a big R&D partner for it.


----------



## P Kaye (4 Feb 2005)

>> I think he means the result of the foreign policy and defense review will result in a new white paper

Yes, that's what I was referring to.  Has the review been completed yet?


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach (4 Feb 2005)

I have no idea if we are gonna purchase the JSF... It wasn't mentioned on the brief.  Just that they are gonna finish the F-18 upgrades as planed.  They did not buy the F-16 because it is a Single engine fighter.  It should be the same for the F-18 replacement.  If they have an engine failure while they are doing an Arctic patrol, they want that second engine to bring them to safety.  That was the main argument for the F-18.  To be the devils advocate, they did purchase the F-18 during the cold war and Arctic patrols should have greatly diminished.  I think they are looking at replacing the F-18 between 2020-2025.  
Personally, I think it would make more sense to purchase the Typhoon.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Feb 2005)

P Kaye I have read a few of your posts and have noticed you tend to put 2 posts down when one will do.


----------



## P Kaye (4 Feb 2005)

CFL, I apologise if that irritates you.
If you would like an explanation for why you sometimes see two consecutive posts by me, there are two:
1) sometimes I make a post, and then shortly after realise there was something else I want to mention.
2) sometimes while writing one post, somebody else posts something.  So I don't read that until I have finished posting.  Then I read the other person's post (which went up as I was composing mine) and want to say something about it... resulting in a second consecutive post by me.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Feb 2005)

all you have to do is simply hit the modify button.


----------



## P Kaye (4 Feb 2005)

Ah... I never noticed that button before.  Thanks for the tip!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Feb 2005)

CHIMO!!!!! said:
			
		

> And you're assuming that the Air Force will get the UAV's??? They are a ground asset my friend.



Who do you think will be using the UAVs off of naval ships in the coming years?The Air Force! Trials are already been talked about procedures have been laid out and there was no sight of a green uniform.


----------



## 404SqnAVSTeach (4 Feb 2005)

I think that every body is gonna have UAV's.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Feb 2005)

UAVs can be anything from a joint asset down to individual environments tools.  It's pretty perochial to hear folks say, "if it flies, it's the Air Force's."  Some issues are no doubt related to airworthiness, etc.. which must be dealt with -- primarily by the Air Force.  The whole issue of command, control and support, however, is at the very least an interesting one.  I suspect that UAV's in the CF will eventually encompass a family of UAV's across all environmnets.  I have been working with my Army brethren on an LF family of UAVs...from Brigade all the way down to platoon and section level.  At the Brigade-level (TUAV) is seems as though one of Gen Hillier;s last directives was to give some PYs and $$$ to the AF to make the UAV thing happen for the Army.  To be honest, I don't think the Air Force has come to fully appreciate how involved providing an entire system of tactical UAV capability for the Army will be.  I think Hillier was pretty sharp on this one...the Army will get the capability and the Air Force will have to put its money where its mouth is.  It would not at all be a good show for the Air Force to have squawked so loudly about "being the only ones to fly UAVs" and then not be able to provide in theatre when and where required... All the MALE/HALE stuff will likely remain Air Force controlled/supported assets in the CF but they will likely only be capability providers at the tactical level while the Army will actually command and control TUAVs and below.


----------



## JasonH (4 Feb 2005)

It's foolish to say UAV's are for the ground only.  Airforce, Army, Marines, Navy all use UAV's... so do some research next time


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Feb 2005)

This is really interesting.  What do our resident academics know about Jennifer Welsh?  Has anybody read her "At Home in the World: Canada's Global Vision for the 21st Century"?  From this report it could presage some interesting things for you lot in uniform, not necessarily all bad.

It also seems to say something about the PM's view about the bodies in Foreign Affairs.  Hope it doesn't delay the policy release. 

canada news  
Friday, Feb 04, 2005  

Martin outsources search for national identity to university academic 


OTTAWA (CP) - Paul Martin tossed his hands up in frustration over his government's review of Canadian foreign policy and has asked an Oxford University scholar to inject it with a bold, new vision for the country. 

The prime minister concluded after a series of in-house drafts that his government's review failed to provide that vision, The Canadian Press has learned. The task was subcontracted last month to Jennifer Welsh, a Saskatchewan-born Rhodes scholar who is examining the work and offering suggestions, say sources close to Martin. 

The Canadian expatriate is known in foreign-policy circles for her Canada-as-model-citizen concept - a philosophy that touches on everything from the military and foreign aid, to changing the relationship with the United States. 

That broad-based philosophy was precisely what the prime minister felt was lacking in drafts produced by bureaucrats and political staff, who a year ago were tasked with charting Canadian foreign policy for the early 21st century. 

"(Martin's) not satisfied enough with the story line. It's like, 'What is the organizing principle here?' " said a senior government official. 

"I think the main issue is (he's) saying, 'Let's have a fresh pair of eyes that might give it a little more pizzazz.' " 

The fresh eyes in question belong to Welsh, who teaches international relations at Oxford and has lived in England for the last five years. 

She is also the author of a book - At Home in the World: Canada's Global Vision for the 21st Century - read by both Martin and Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew. 

The book encourages Canadians to escape their traditional mind set about how they relate to the United States and the rest of the world. 

Welsh says Canada must grow up and stop defining itself in relation to the U.S., which will only lead to knee-jerk pro-or anti-Americanism that fails in both cases to serve this country well. 

She says the low point came in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, when U.S. President George W. Bush touched off a furor by failing to mention Canada in an address to Congress. 

"It was a raw and unattractive display of our national inferiority complex," she wrote. 

"How could we turn an international crisis, an impending war, into an opportunity to navel-gaze and wring our hands over our lack of influence with Washington? 

"How small of Canada, I thought." 

If it simply strived to be a so-called model citizen in the world, Canada could, she argues, make the best possible choices on things like military deployment and foreign aid, free from the hand-wringing and anxieties over whether we're too much or too little like the U.S. 

Instead, Welsh says we should make decisions based on Canadian needs and the needs of countries where we're involved. In other words, we should start worrying about simply making the right choices, she says. 

  
The model-citizen concept cuts across the political spectrum and can be applied to virtually any cause. 

Conservatives would take heart, for instance, in Welsh's conclusion that Canada should join the U.S. missile shield. The system is being built with or without Canada, she says, and the federal government has a moral duty to protect its citizens with the best available technology. 

She also calls for investments in the armed forces, which she calls a crucial tool of Canada's foreign policy. 

She and the Liberal prime minister are on the same page when it comes to just what Canada's role should be in the world. 

They agree that Canada's new international niche should be democracy-building, and helping failing or struggling states build judicial and political systems. 

The principles in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are an example, Martin said recently, of how to build a peaceful country from the ashes of war. 

"Two nations historically at war with each other - the French and the English - came together to found a new country and two religions, Catholic and the various Protestant religions . . . found a way to work together," Martin said during a recent trip to Asia. 

"We never sought to form a melting pot, because we always understood that respect for each other was a fundamental tenet of what Canadians were all about. . . . 

"I believe that we have built one of the strongest countries in the world and certainly a country that the rest of the world can use as a model." 

To Martin, foreign policy is one area where he's winning plaudits and has made numerous foreign trips based on his promise to expand Canada's role internationally. 

As soon as he took office he ordered a review of Canadian foreign, military and trade policy. 

The last one conducted by the federal government was in 1995, just after the Cold War and dismissed as outdated in the fast-changing international context. 

Welsh declined to be interviewed about the foreign-policy review, saying in an e-mail she had a "conflicting commitment." 

But in an interview posted on the federal government's Website, she said she wanted Canadians to stop thinking about their country in relative size to others. 

"I introduced this idea of the model citizen because I was becoming increasingly frustrated with the idea of Canada as a middle power," she said. 

"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." 

The Prime Minister's Office declined to comment on Welsh's involvement. 



© The Canadian Press, 2005 

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=canada_home&articleID=1836852


----------



## 043 (5 Feb 2005)

JasonH said:
			
		

> It's foolish to say UAV's are for the ground only.   Airforce, Army, Marines, Navy all use UAV's... so do some research next time



Ahhhh I am sooooooooo foolish!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Feb 2005)

Well, I'm certainly not a _resident academic,â ?_ but I am familiar with Welsh (   http://www.politics.ox.ac.uk/about/stafflist.asp?action=show&person=71 ) and her book and I do pontificate now and then, so ...

Her central thesis: that Canada can and should 'grow up' and play a self-defined role in the world is OK.   I take issue with the role she advocates ... a 'Model Citizen' state.   I find it neither practical nor desirable.

I agree with her that we, as a nation, must _announce_ and promote both our vital interests and our values as a â Å“constitutional democracyâ ? (she, in turn, agrees with political theorist Jeremy Waldron - http://www.columbia.edu/cu/philosophy/Faculty/_facultypages/jeremywaldron.html )   I, personally, find Fareed Zakarias (http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/articles.html ) more persuasive, at least clearer but all three try to get at the same idea.   The Liberal, constitutional democracies â â€œ and there are damned few of them â â€œ exist in an untidy tangle of overlapping *principles* including, but not limited to: rule of law, elections (government with the consent of the governed), freedom of information (government with the _*informed*_ consent of the governed), independent judiciary which, somehow, balances the executive/legislative 'branches,' regulated capitalism, which includes respect for (if not, always, constitutional protection of property rights) and so on ...

Being a 'model' is not, in my view, sufficient.

I also agree with Welsh that we are not going, cannot go back to the 'glory days' of St. Laurent's foreign policy ... we are no longer the leader of the _middle powers_ but, despite the best efforts of Pierre Trudeau (certainly the very worst leader of any Western democracy in the 2nd half of the 20th century ... a petty, provincial, pumped-up poltroon and an economic and foreign policy ignoramus to boot) and Jean Chrétien (a cheap crook interested only in his own parish pump politics) Canada remains, as I have said before, one of the 'top ten' nations at the turn of the millennium.   Even after China and India and maybe Brazil and Indonesia and Spain and, and, and 'develop' (and not all will) we will remain in the top 10% of all the nations in the world by mid century.   We may not recover our 'glory' but we will, still, have power and influence and we must use it or lose it.   (I have expressed this concern elsewhere; plus, I argue that 'soft power' only exists for nations which have (and can use) hard power.   It does not exist in a vacuum â â€œ _Pink Lloyd_ Axworthy is (as usual) wrong ... dead wrong.   We can have an use soft power only after we have rebuilt and have demonstrated a willingness and ability to use our hard power ... soft power exists in the minds of those to whom it is applied and they only take note of the soft power after they are aware of the hard stuff.)

I also believe that Welsh, like many scholars, misinterprets what Trudeau tried to do with the 1969/70 _ Foreign Policy for Canadians_ (White Paper) fiasco.   She, citing others - e.g. Granatstein, argues that Trudeau was placing interests ahead of values.   I believe it was quite the opposite because Trudeau failed to understand Canada's interests and, instead, he imposed on set of _small Canada_, provincial values on our foreign policy, called that _interests_ and went back to his only area of interest: the _problem_ of Québec nationalism.

I believe we have interests; I have summed them up, elsewhere, in two words: *peace* and *prosperity*.   Peace, I have explained, is more than just the absence of war and prosperity is more than just a favourable trade balance.   We need to protect and promote those interests which contribute to our *peace* and our *prosperity* so that we can, then, promote both, and our values to others.

Welsh is popular, very popular right now and we, those who support an effective military for Canada, should support her over the wet noodles in DFAIT but we must, also, understand that she is promoting something which is neither practical in the 21st century nor, in my personal opinion, even desirable.   That being said, it is a start and if the government listens to her and starts down that path then our interests will have been served before _public interest_ fades, again.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Feb 2005)

So ROJ when ARE you going to run for office? I'd like to have someone to vote for.

Interesting commentary on Trudeau, Chretien and Axworthy.  I find myself in agreement.

History is replete with discussions of behind the scene's manoeuvring.  I wonder what the story the books will tell a hundred years from now.

I ran down to the local bookstore and got a copy of "At home in the World".  Couldn't help but wonder if her scholarship hadn't been paid by the Liberal Party.  Norway is the Model and we should emulate Norway.  Soft power, rapid response and niche forces as well as necessary domestic security capabilities seems to be the Coles Notes version.

The only faults she seemed to find in the general tendency in Defence policy seemed to be:

a) go ahead and support NMD because it seems unlikely to work, the Americans are going to do it anyway, and it won't cost us anything to support them.
   (On the otherhand not supporting them might have costs)

b) she understood McCallum not buying C17s and "would probably have made the same decision" herself, but Paul Martin is going to have to invest in Strategic Lift.

No quibbles on the lift, but what does she plan to lift.  She also praises Norway because it shifted defence priorities without having to increase the budget.  (No mention that I could see that Norway puts  about 1.8% of GDP into defence and 0.7% into foreign aid - Canada 1% and 0.2%?)  

It will be interesting.

And on the subject of the White Paper and the Foreign Policy review, it sounds as if some of our "Notables" in Foreign Affairs who wish to be unnamed might be getting their noses a bit out of joint.  Perhaps understandable if an outsider has been brought in to do their job.

Cellucci effectively signalled that a Rapid Reaction Force with Heavy Airlift ( so a light force) and an ability to take over security duties in Haiti would be just fine with the US.  He encourages this.

That seems to jibe fairly well with my quick appreciation of Welsh.



> U.S. suggests Canada adopt complementary foreign policy


http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=canada_home&articleID=1837793



> Canada's latest foreign policy review, which began last year, is now in the hands of Oxford University scholar Jennifer Welsh, author of a book that encourages Canadians to stop defining themselves in relation to the United States.
> 
> One top Canadian official attending the conference of politicians, scholars and others debating relations between the two countries said Saturday he found Cellucci's foreign policy suggestion "patronizing" and thought it might raise some hackles in Ottawa.
> 
> ...



Some of our Foreign Policy types don't seem to think that Washington matters.  

How are our beef and lumber sales doing these days?  Any word on the auto industry?

Gawd 'elp us all.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Feb 2005)

This *may* part of the delay ... it doesn't bode well for an easy ride for any defence white paper ...

From today's _Ottawa Citizen_ see: http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=7f2ddaaf-d16a-4fb8-9a4c-eca271f45fe6


> Foreign policy review delayed 'to get it right'
> 
> Pettigrew aide blames changing world; critic says report sent for dose of 'pizzazz'
> 
> ...




Personally, I can do with a little less _pizzaz_ and a little more substance in government policy papers but then, what the heck, I'm only a citizen ...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Feb 2005)

UNCLASSIFIED



IT IS A PRIVILEGE AND AN HONOUR TO BE ADRESSING YOU AS YOUR NEW CHIEF OF THE DEFENCE STAFF. I ASSUME THIS NEW POSITION WITH GREAT PRIDE IN THE CANADIAN FORCES, AND EVEN GREATER HUMILITY FOR BEING OFFERED THIS OPPORTUNITY TO LEAD THOSE WHO I BELIEVE REPRESENT THE VERY BEST OF CANADIANS - THE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE CANDADIAN FORCES. 


I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE CF LEADERSHIP AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE CF AND DEFENCE TEAM TO ADDRESS THE CHALLENGES THAT WILL FACE OUR ORGANIZATION OVER THE COMING YEARS. 


I BELIEVE THE CF IS ENTERING AN EXCITING TIME WITH AN EXCEPTIONAL OPPORTUNITY AT HAND - TO FOCUS EFFORTS FOR RELEVANCY TO BETTER PROTECT THE SECURITY OF CANADIANS AT HOME AND ABROAD. 


THE GOVERNMENT S REVIEW OF CANADA S DEFENCE POLICY IS THE FIRST MAJOR STEP IN THIS DIRECTION. THE NEW POLICY WILL PROVIDE THE CF WITH A FOCUS AND DIRECTION. 


THOUGH RECENT MEDIA REPORTS SPECULATE WIDELY ON THE OUTCOME OF THIS REVIEW, AND THIS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL THE NEW POLICY IS TABLED, I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT MY INTENT IS TO KEEP YOU AS WELL INFORMED AS POSSIBLE AS WE MOVE CLOSER TO POLICY RELEASE. 


THE DEVELOOPMENT OF THE DEFENCE POLICY STATEMENT HAS BEEN A COLLECTIVE EFFORT INVOLVING SENIOR MILITARY LEADERSHIP FROM ALL ELEMENTS OF THE CF. THE POLICY WILL CLEARLY OUTLINE THE ROLE THAT LAND, SEA, AIR AND SPECIAL FORCES WILL PLAY IN DEFENDING OUR COUNTRY AND HELPING THOSE IN NEED ABROAD. MY VISION IS A NAVY, ARMY, AND AIR FORCE WORKING AS ONE INTEGRATED TEAM TO ENSURE THE CF IS EFFECTIVE, RELEVANT AND RESPONSIVE TO THE SECURITY REQUIREMENTS OF CANADA AT HOME AND OVERSEAS. 


I WILL ENGAGE CF LEADERSHIP IN ONGOING DIALOGUE AS WE MOVE FORWARD. WE HAVE A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY TO IMPLEMENT THE NEW DEFENCE POLICY AND TO ENSURE OUR SERVICE MEN AND WOMEN, AS WELL AS ALL CANADIANS, UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CF IS DOING TO BETTER DEFEND OUR COUNTRY AND ENHANCE OUR EFFORTS ABROAD. 


I AM EXCITED ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE CANADIAN FORCES AND LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU TO FOCUS OUR EFFORTS FOR RELEVANCY TO BETTER PROTECT THE SECURITY OF CANADIANS.


----------



## P Kaye (8 Feb 2005)

I've been on the edge-of-my seat in anticipation of the result of this reveiw.
I recently read "While Canada Slept" by Andrew Cohen... has anybody else read this book?  I recommend it, although it may put you in a bad mood...


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Feb 2005)

Thanks CFL for agreeing to ask the Mods to merge the CDS message (up above) with this Defence White Paper thread   ...

I think the progression is going to be:

"¢	The integrated 3D (*d*iplomacy, *d*evelopment, *d*efence) policy review/statementand

"¢	A defence white paper; and

"¢	Finally - some major changes to force structure based on a _new_ budgetary base

The trick, for Graham/Hillier and their successors - such as it is a 'trick' - will be to ensure that the new budget base enables the forces to do what the white paper says ... there's many a slip, etc ...


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Feb 2005)

Hmmmm...democracy in a former Easter Bloc nation?  Wow...that really did sneak up on us!  Last time that happened was....oh, I don't know...*1989!* :


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Feb 2005)

You would think that the writers would use some loose or generic language that while it may not name countries by name ie Ukraine it would still have a general all encompassing theme.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Feb 2005)

The real reason for the delay is to incorporate Welsh's new language and, according to the rumours, new ideas into a pretty dull, pedestrian (How else? It was written by committee*s* and then edited and revised by another committee!) paper.

We (Canadians) went through this with Trudeau's pathetic, even disastrous '69 white paper â â€œ it was *all* style and fancy presentation and it was absolutely, 100% devoid of ideas and ideals ... the worst effort of Canada's worst 'leader.'


----------



## P Kaye (8 Feb 2005)

Perhaps we should reserve judgement until the paper is released... perhaps we will be surprised...


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Feb 2005)

> "The world has changed in the past 35 to 40 days," Mr. McTeague said, answering for Mr. Pettigrew, who is out of the country. He referred to the recent elections in Ukraine that brought new hope for democracy "and, of course, the tsunami."
> 
> "It is important that we consult with all individuals in the world, with all experts, and that we get this right," Mr. McTeague added.



Hmm, interesting concept.  Policy development by consulting with 6 Billion people, individually, every 35 to 40 days.  Kind of sets a new standard donchathink. 

Snide comments aside....



> Perhaps we should reserve judgement until the paper is released... perhaps we will be surprised...



Agree entirely P Kaye.

Cheers.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Mar 2005)

Some ideas that* should * be considered in the policy review/white paper...



> The Conference of Defence Associations (CDA) would like to bring to your attention several articles (see links below) that address the changing nature of threats and warfare in the shadow of Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the need for defence doctrines in the Western world to adapt accordingly (see Colin Gray's article). For instance for Canada, the lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq may provide good rationale for certain capabilities the Canadian Forces now lack (or are in the process of discarding): main battle tanks (MBTs) for urban warfare/warfighting operations; close helicopter air support and expeditionary ships big enough to carry and support these items.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## NMPeters (31 Mar 2005)

Just to let you all know, we are not getting a Defence Policy Review or White Paper. What we will be getting, sometime, whenever, is a Defence Policy Statement. That's what it's called now. Don't ask me what that means because I just don't know.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (31 Mar 2005)

NMPeters said:
			
		

> Just to let you all know, we are not getting a Defence Policy Review or White Paper. What we will be getting, sometime, whenever, is a Defence Policy Statement. That's what it's called now. Don't ask me what that means because I just don't know.



Anyone who votes Liberal should be shot with a ball of their own feces.



Matthew.     :


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (31 Mar 2005)

"Anyone who votes Liberal should be shot with a ball of their own feces."

And the PC's did such an outstanding job when they were in power.
They are all the same patronage lovine, big business controlled, special interest following parties with a little different window dressing.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (31 Mar 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> "Anyone who votes Liberal should be shot with a ball of their own feces."
> 
> And the PC's did such an outstanding job when they were in power.
> They are all the same patronage lovine, big business controlled, special interest following parties with a little different window dressing.




Off the top of my head, since Mulroney was in power from 1984 to 1993 (9 years) was he not responsible for:
Halifax-class Frigates
TRUMP upgrade
Arcturus P-3's
MHP-percursor
Nuclear Submarine Program (either British Trafalgar or French Amethyst) which would've allowed us to monitor the artic

In the subsequent 10 years, what has the Liberal government actually funded and delivered:
SMP?
MILCOTS?
Victoria-class?

Seriously, you keep bad-mouthing the PC's, but that doesn't negate the fact that the current PC supporters are far more in favour of a strong military (and using it) than Liberal supporters and because of that if we actually elected a PC government, we might actually get something done.




M.   :


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Mar 2005)

In fairness some (most, actually) of the major re-equipment projects started under Liberals and finished under the Tories.   That is a sad reflection of the time necessary to move from approval to hardware in the field.

Neither party wanted to get too far away from the Canadian _mainstream_ which is â â€œ and has been since the early '60s â â€œ wary of too much defence spending.   Canadians, broadly, see budgets as zero-sum games â â€œ if there is more money for defence then there must be less for *more important* programmes (more important to them, as individuals).

There was no *great* public outcry in '68 and '69 when Trudeau, supported by some in his cabinet, wanted to withdraw from the NATO military command structure â â€œ as France had done just a few years earlier.   Canadians were offered guns or butter but were told, and believed, that one must come at the expense of the other.

Mulroney, supported by some in his cabinet, too, wanted to modernize and expand the military but he produced a Cold War plan just as the Cold War ended, despite warnings from the professionals (civilian bureaucrats) in NDHQ about both the changing strategic situation and overly optimistic cost figures from the Tory _outsiders_* who crafted the Beatty White Paper.     P!ss poor planning, etc ...

There is not too much to choose between the Liberals and the Tories; it tends to revolve around leaders.   Trudeau mistrusted and, actively, disliked the military; Mulroney liked the _idea_ of robust, capable armed forces â â€œ even though he, too, did not much like his senior defence staff (nor they him, I think).   Chrétien distrusted the admirals and generals â â€œ thinking them all _Anglophilic_ Tories â â€œ even the French Canadian generals.   In both cases the _centre_ in Ottawa (Privy Council Office and Finance Department) think poorly of DND and of the senior people in it.

----------

* Mulroney relied upon outsiders because he, and many of his political advisers, were convinced that the bureaucrats and the admiral and generals were all unreconstructed Liberals.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (31 Mar 2005)

I bad mouth all politicians.  I'm bi-partisan that way.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Apr 2005)

NMPeters said:
			
		

> Just to let you all know, we are not getting a Defence Policy Review or White Paper. What we will be getting, sometime, whenever, is a Defence Policy Statement. That's what it's called now. Don't ask me what that means because I just don't know.



It means all those notional billions of dollars we are supposed to get 5 years from now will be *"Dithered"* away........


----------

