# MND O'Connor Says "No New Missions for now"



## 17thRecceSgt (8 May 2006)

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060508/oconnor_military_missions_060508

No new overseas missions for now: O'Connor 
CTV.ca News

Canada's military can't take on any new overseas missions while it's trying to expand, says Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor.

"As long as we are expanding the armed forces, we will not be able to maintain two sort of heavy lines of commitment from the army,'' he said Monday while testifying before a Senate defence committee hearing in Ottawa.

Sen. Romeo Dallaire and NDP Leader Jack Layton have called for a Canadian presence in Darfur, the violence-racked area in southern Sudan. The Sudanese government has signed a peace deal with the major rebel group there and has indicated it would be open to UN peacekeepers getting involved.

O'Connor said the current mission in Afghanistan, which involves 2,200 forces personnel, is the limit, although Layton suggested shifting resources from Afghanistan.

The minister said, "We can maintain Afghanistan as it is into the future basically forever, but we would be greatly challenged for a substantial commitment elsewhere."

The main challenge right now is to refill the ranks of the army, navy and air force, he said.

At the start of the 1990s, there were 75,000 forces personnel. Currently, there are about 62,000, but O'Connor said only about 52,000 are termed "effectives."

The rest are recruits in training, people on courses or those on medical and other forms of leave.

The Tories plan to add 13,000 full-time recruits to the military.

Equipment

*The forces will go on a shopping spree of aircraft, ships and trucks once cabinet gives the go-ahead, O'Connor said.*

Streamlining the ponderous procurement system will be a priority, O'Connor said. The minister said he wants to buy proven, off-the-shelf equipment.

"We're not going to buy paper trucks or paper airplanes,'' he said.

O'Connor rejected the notion equipment had to be "Canadianized" unless there was a compelling reason.

The retired general said he remembered when helmets had to be tweaked to be Canadian, "as if there was a 'Canadian' head."


Paper trucks?  I didn't know the LSVW was made of paper!
Is this the Fed Gov drawing a line in the sand specifically because JL and the rest of the NDP cult are echoing Senator Dallaire and calling for tp's in Darfur??

MRM


----------



## geo (8 May 2006)

well.... I for one congratulate the MDN for his perceptive abilities.
Having the choice between doing two things - half assed or one thing done right, let's get some country that doesn't have much UN committment get involved in Sudan....
China? N Korea?


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (8 May 2006)

I thought it was sort of "the MND says we are stretched thin, and need to re-generate..don't ask us to go to Africia right now we are busy trying to hire/train those 13,000 Reg Frce people we annouced last week and OH...we are going to buy some new kit soon, and it might not be sourced in Canada so suck it up"...

I wonder if the PR folks are Bombardier have read that one yet   

or Western Star

or...


----------



## Hunter (8 May 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Paper trucks?  I didn't know the LSVW was made of paper!
> Is this the Fed Gov drawing a line in the sand specifically because JL and the rest of the NDP cult are echoing Senator Dallaire and calling for tp's in Darfur??



Minister O'Connor has been talking about equipment mentioned in the article since before the last Federal Election.  I don't think the Conservatives give a flying foxfart about what what comes out of Layton's mouth.  As far as the equipment goes, you are correct - the LSVW is not made of paper, but given their reliability some of them may as well be.  And it was the  Progressive-Conservative Party; they are not the same political party as the one that purchased the LSVW.


----------



## Armymedic (8 May 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> well.... I for one congratulate the MDN for his perceptive abilities.
> Having the choice between doing two things - half assed or one thing done right, let's get some country that doesn't have much UN committment get involved in Sudan....



+1 and,
ref Sudan +1. I personally don't want to go to that little shithole of insanity. If you thought Afghanistan was a foriegn climate.... :evil:


----------



## paracowboy (8 May 2006)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> I personally don't want to go to that little ******* of insanity.


I do, but not with what we got right now. I would dearly love to visit some righteous indignation upon the janjaweed and their puppet-masters in Khartoum. 

But we can't do it yet. 

And MND got it right, as far as I am conerned.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 May 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> I do, but not with what we got right now. I would dearly love to visit some righteous indignation upon the janjaweed and their puppet-masters in Khartoum.
> 
> But we can't do it yet.
> 
> And MND got it right, as far as I am conerned.



Bingo!

Darfur needs doing; but not by us and, right now, maybe not even by *any* Western nation.

Darfur is a crime against humanity and the _bad guys_ need sorting out - into graves.  One of the problems is that they are on the list and it's a long list and they aren't at the top of the list, yet.  Resources, even America's resources, only stretch so far.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (8 May 2006)

Oh no, its that other person's younger sister Paracowboy?

Jack Layton is "suggesting" we move some of the assets in Afgha to Darfur.  Is he really that clueless or is it purely for political points?

This is one link I was using to get background info on Darfur.

http://www.darfurgenocide.org/

I am sure there are better ones but it was a start.

I support the MND and what others have said here.  It seems time to suck back, reload, and not take on any more at this time.  If the CDS and PM also toe the same line...maybe folks will listen?

Wait, what did I just say?  Slap.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (8 May 2006)

:rofl:

The MND said a priority will be improving the procurement process (or words to that effect).  Is this even possible??

As I type that I remember a story one of the last Base Commanders of CFB Summerside told me when I was driving him to a mess dinner ( a while ago...CFB Summerside????) about when he was in RMC in the 60's...they had asked about getting toques and told "R & D is being done on some this year".   R & D.  In Canada. On toques.

Sorta suggests that our procurement procedures are and have been so tied up with red tape and "policy" to not upset anyone that the ones who suffer are and have been the end users.  Aka the troops.  Thats too bad.  I think the troops should come before Company A and Company B's right to bid on toques.

Time will tell?

Mud


----------



## geo (9 May 2006)

Hmmm.....
The MDN did not win too many points yesterday talking to the Senate avout the money he's gotten and the new recruits he's saying he'll recruit and train.

He's gone on record as saying that he's not an accountant (a good thing) but that by using what accountants use (creative bookkeeping?) (not a good thing) he'll be able to meet objective.

(meeting - will post quote later).


----------



## geo (9 May 2006)

Mike Blanchfield, Canwest news service ;  

Lib Senator Day pressed the MDN on how the military could even begin it’s ambitious recruiting plan with as little as 200MM$ in actual new money this year.  “We’ll actually spend more money on people this year, above what the original plan was and, uh, the magic of accountants, somehow they can shuffle those dollars around” the MDN replied>>”I don’t get into that sort of stuff, but they can shuffle dollars around and there will be extra money to buy more people this year”.

A sceptical Day replied “the magic of the accountants, unfortunately, has resulted in the past in the armed forces not having the money to do the job we’ve been asking them to do – and that’s what our concern is. And that’s why we’re putting these questions to you”



> Now, this is what was said in the printed press...... is it out of context? - don't know but I would not have started to talk about creative bookkeeping or accounting magic...
> (we here all know what he means by it BUT, does the public?)


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (9 May 2006)

> the magic of accountants



 :rofl:

Why am I not surprised...   :


----------



## Michael Dorosh (9 May 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Mike Blanchfield, Canwest news service ;
> 
> Lib Senator Day pressed the MDN on how the military could even begin it’s ambitious recruiting plan with as little as 200MM$ in actual new money this year.  “We’ll actually spend more money on people this year, above what the original plan was and, uh, the magic of accountants, somehow they can shuffle those dollars around” the MDN replied>>”I don’t get into that sort of stuff, but they can shuffle dollars around and there will be extra money to buy more people this year”.
> 
> A sceptical Day replied “the magic of the accountants, unfortunately, has resulted in the past in the armed forces not having the money to do the job we’ve been asking them to do  – and that’s what our concern is. And that’s why we’re putting these questions to you”



That's funny, I thought it was the policies of Mr. Day's party that led to that end state.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (9 May 2006)

Very true, but the Senate Defence Committee has always been supportive of the CF and of giving the CF new resources - no matter what the political stripe of its members...


----------



## geo (9 May 2006)

Michael....
The policies of the Progressive Conservatives and the "green" Brian Mulroney also contributed to the current boondoggle.

That having been said, the Senator is entitled to ask the MDN how he intended to reach his goal... but talking about Magic and accounting wizzardry isn't the right course to follow.............. IMHO


----------



## Kirkhill (9 May 2006)

geo:

You're right on the accounting bit.... :


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (9 May 2006)

Agreed.  Although it might be CDF in the military what that means, John and Susy Taxpayer might not get it...the whole idea of "transferable budgets" or whatever the magic accountants call them...

I hope the MND has some more solid answers in the future, if only to keep the other (IMO) truly crappy parties have having any more leeway than they can scrape up against the MND and our current PM...

"not good enough, get down and do it again" is what I think about his Harry Potter Accounting answers.

Public impression is important now I think?  Hate to have their job...straighten out the mess the GDman Liberals made of everything a federal government could possibly f**k up...and then have the Liberals sitting there criticizing you on cleaning up their mess.  I would have punched the $%^@#@ out of someone by now...

I am holding on what he said though...no new missions, more troops, new kit.  THATs the stuff he said I care about...I would think it would be funny if he came back on TV and introduced the CF accountants and they were all in like big pointy hats and about 12 years old though...

 :rofl:


----------



## McG (10 May 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> *Contradictory signals on Canadian military role in Darfur*
> *Mike Blanchfield
> CanWest News Service; Ottawa Citizen
> Wednesday, May 10, 2006*
> ...


This is because in order to achieve the growth directed by the government, the soldiers that could have gone to Sudan will now be required to run courses & training.  So, what was said last fall & what is being said now are both true (though contradictory).


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 May 2006)

The media's agenda marches on: a piece by Jim Travers in the Toronto Star in which he claims that former PM Martin got a promise in March 2005 from Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Hillier that there would be troops for both Afstan and Darfur. The title says it all: "Peacekeeping pledge broken".
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1147297813034&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## McG (11 May 2006)

> *Peacekeeping pledge broken*
> *Military said they'd be ready for Darfur
> A year later, DND commitment has faded*
> May 11, 2006. 05:33 AM
> ...



The title if definately missleading, but the facts are there if you look into the article.  The CF told the Liberal government that it could do Afghanistan & Sudan.  Then we got a Conservative government which said directed the CF to grow by a lot (and to do it fast).  The CF has not broken any promisses.  The government has changed prioreties and the CF will now do Afghanistan & massive growth.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (11 May 2006)

Jim Travers is disingenuous horse's ass....and not suprisingly a favourite on CBC Newsworld for his "enlightened" outlook.


Matt.   :


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 May 2006)

Jim Travers ends his column with:



> Rebuilding the military is important and will give Canada more options in the future. But it's not important enough to excuse looking away now while so many are dying.



He’s wrong, sadly.

The dying, like the poor, are always with us.

This particular group is not all that distinguishable from others which we, Canada and other ‘determined nations’ have ignored in the past.

Many Army.ca members have opined that the primary _utility_ of armed forces is to give the government of the day *options*.  To do that the armed forces must be capable of doing a certain range of tasks – decades, nearly four of them, of neglect and, occasionally, actual destruction of military capabilities have deprived the Government of Canada of many of its options.  Delaying the rebuilding of our military capabilities, even to help others to deal with a real crime against humanity, would a grave *strategic*_ error.

Darfur is bad; there will be worse.  The longer we postpone giving ourselves useful options the weaker will be our capability to respond.
_


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (11 May 2006)

Looks like the pressure's building.  Wonder where my desert boots are?   

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060511/darfur_deployment_060511/20060511?hub=TopStories



> Harper considers possibility of Darfur deployment
> Updated Thu. May. 11 2006 9:39 AM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (11 May 2006)

As usual Edward.

I agree entirely and just finished sending off my screed to Travers pointing out that if 135,000 Americans, ~30,000 allies, ~250,000 Iraqis in uniform and untold numbers of security consultants, backed by the US Navy, secure bases in places like Kuwait and Oman with a solid supply line can't secure Iraq how much more difficult would Darfur be?

The borders are non-existent as are secure bases.  The Navy won't get any closer than 1500 km so they are out of the fight entirely.  There would be no secure lines of communication.

Darfur and indeed the whole of the interior of Africa would require a massive invasion force that would never be authorized by  the UN or local governments.  The only good thing that I can see coming out of this is it might force Canadians to rethink if they want to do the "right thing" (God help them) or the UN approved thing.  Because those are often mutually exclusive events.

At any rate, practicalities always rear their ugly heads and the right thing or the approved thing are often trumped by the possible thing.

A grumpy Cheers this morning.


----------



## rampage800 (11 May 2006)

Could it be that TF 2-07 was cancelled a little too early ? I know that they need to train troops but now after 4-06 then what ? I think they've taken most of that TF now(2-07) minus the coy tasked to the 1-07, and tasked them to death meaning the guys will still be gone for the same length of time its just that they won't leave the country. That makes for some pretty bitter guys I'm sure, maybe if the CF worried half as much about retention as they did recruiting we wouldn't be chewing all this gum to keep the boat afloat. 

Anyhow enough ranting from from me, so maybe a viable option is a one shot deal like Op APOLLO, might not sit too well in Ottawa though, just starting to to make a difference and then we leave ? I can almost hear Jack Layton now, even though if it was up to him the CF would be picking up garbage on the side of the highways(with blue berets on of course)

Well thats about all I have from here, I'll get down off my soapbox now.(lol)


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 May 2006)

Kirkhill: In addition most media reporting--and questions from Layton et al.--simply assume there will be a UN force for Darfur (indeed from some reporting and commentary one could get the impression such a force already exists and Canada is delinquent in not taking part).  When in reality such a force will almost certainly require the approval of Khartoum (is a force to invade against the government? not likely).  If, without that approval, a resolution for a Chapter VII force is nonetheless brought to the UNSC, China and Russia would almost certainly veto it.

If Sudan agreed to a Chapter VI--"traditional peacekeeping"--force it would be unlikely to achieve much.  See B-H.  Yet none of these obstacles are dealt with seriously by our politicians and media, Margaret Wente aside (full text not online).
http://www.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/story/LAC.20060511.COWENT11/TPStory/National/columnists

'...
...Jack Layton wants to help Darfur, especially if it means we get to pull our troops out of Afghanistan to do it. "Let there be no doubt," he said in an emotional speech this week. "What we are seeing in Darfur is genocide in slow motion."

Mr. Layton wants to bring back the glory days of peacekeeping under the umbrella of the United Nations. The blue helmets will protect the innocent (if there are any left alive by then) from being raped and slaughtered, just the way they protected those 800,000 people in Rwanda. Even Roméo Dallaire now says the UN is the answer...

If sentiment were deeds and talk were action, Canada would be a hero...

Let no one say Canada hasn't seized the moral high ground on Darfur. Even if we don't have any troops to send, we can help in other ways. We can get Mr. Rock to talk sternly to Russia and China, who are stubbornly refusing to come around. And after the militias peacefully lay down their arms, we can send our experts to help write a constitution.

Unfortunately, I doubt Sudan's Omar Hassan Bashir is too worried yet. He knows his pals will stick up for him. China gets 7 per cent of its oil from Sudan, and in turn sells it weapons to arm its militias...

The Arab nations have been curiously mum about the Muslims dying in Darfur. Is it because they're the wrong kind of Muslims? Or is it because they're being slaughtered by other Muslims, instead of by Americans and Jews? The African Union isn't enthusiastic about Western meddling either. They're insulted that people think their own 7,000-man security force can't do the job -- even though it has been totally ineffectual. The Europeans, meantime, have mostly got out of the peacekeeping business. They'd rather stand back and denounce American imperialism...'

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill (11 May 2006)

Agreed Mark.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 May 2006)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060511.wxcowent11/BNStory/International/home

Here is Margaret Wente's article in the G&M.  It serves as something of a counter-point to Travers.



> Never again? Who are we kidding?


----------



## Kirkhill (11 May 2006)

Sorry to inundate this thread but I just saw Ujjal on CBC "debating" sending troops to Sudan.  I guess in CBC parlance one person proselytizing is the same as a debate, but I digress.....

UD wants to send 1500 of you lot to Sudan.  When asked what they would do, "traditional Blue Beret peacekeeping" or peacemaking "as in Afghanistan" he replied "both".  I thought you were already doing both in Afghanistan.  I guess the tune is changing.  For the LPC/NDP Afghanistan is now peacemaking (Yankee overtones I guess) while Sudan is "both".

Curiously, again according to UD, if the Sudan and the UN Security Council don't like it then tough....Canada should organize a coalition of the willing and invade anyway....We have a responsibility to protect.

I need some Gravol.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 May 2006)

So let me get this straight.  The NDP has no problem with us going to the Sudan without a UN mandate and conduct peacemaking operations but they do for Afghanistan?!?


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 May 2006)

Quagmire: mais bien sûr.  It's all about politics, not logic or what is realistically practical.  I'm just waiting for Black Jack to realize that the strongest advocate for intervention in Darfur is GWB.  But Jack, though fast with the mouth, is slow with the grey cells.  And Hercule has a better 'stache.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## NightrainFXSTB (11 May 2006)

Does it not scare some of you, that crazy people like UD, who clearly change depending on what's the "cool" thing to do at the moment, are the ones that decide to send you people to war? Can I ask this: if there were no civilian leadership, where would YOU GUYS send yourselves? OR...would you just stay home and eat chocolate. 

I would.


----------



## paracowboy (12 May 2006)

NightrainFXSTB said:
			
		

> Does it not scare some of you, that crazy people like UD, who clearly change depending on what's the "cool" thing to do at the moment, are the ones that decide to send you people to war? Can I ask this: if there were no civilian leadership, where would YOU GUYS send yourselves? OR...would you just stay home and eat chocolate.
> 
> I would.


if there were no civilian leadership, we would be living under a militaristic dictatorship, and I would be fighting against it.

And winning.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (12 May 2006)

I think I would send myself for some training in...Hawaii..and...Bermuda...places like that.  Wearing only a clown suit.

Whats that saying...

"Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer."

Something like that. Para's answer was good to though.   :blotto:


----------

