# Martin government is poised to enshrine the army as Canada's pre-eminent militar



## John Nayduk

By MICHAEL DEN TANDT
From Thursday's Globe and Mail

POSTED AT 5:49 AM EST Thursday, Jan 27, 2005


Ottawa â â€ The Martin government is poised to enshrine the army as Canada's pre-eminent military service and sharply reduce the number of countries to which it gives foreign aid, while boosting international spending in areas where it believes it will have the greatest impact, sources say.
The government's long-anticipated foreign policy review, which Prime Minister Paul Martin launched more than a year ago, will be unveiled before the federal budget, sources say. It will map out a plan to streamline and reinvigorate Canada's place abroad by refocusing military spending, foreign aid and diplomacy, officials familiar with the document say.

The paper, a final version of which is still being prepared, will urge a sharp reduction in the list of 150-plus countries that receive aid from the Canadian International Development Agency. It will also push the aid body from its traditional focus on broad poverty alleviation toward more urgent concerns such as AIDS in Africa and Asia, sources say.

The review, led by officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs with input from the Department of Defence, International Trade and CIDA, does not have the force of law, but is intended to set a direction for government policy. Sources say the paper's main points will be prominently articulated in the coming budget.

The paper will lay the groundwork for a major redeployment of foreign service staff overseas to give the government more "boots on the ground" in natural disasters or other international crises.

And it will signal the formal elevation of the Canadian army to a senior position within the military, with sea and air forces reduced to support roles.

"If a capability is not directly related to supporting the army, then it gets less focus," a source familiar with the review said. ". . . The whole thrust of [the review] is, how do we develop a more focused approach, in everything that we do, so we can have a greater impact?"

In addition, the 50-page document will map out a plan for greater North American integration, with a focus on regulatory harmonization, enhanced border flow and continental security, without formally reopening the North American free-trade agreement.

The Globe and Mail reported last week that Canadian, U.S. and Mexican officials are talking about a special trilateral summit, possibly in late March, at which the "NAFTA-plus" agenda would be advanced.

The policy review will not pronounce on the explosive issue of whether Canada should join U.S. President George W. Bush's plan for a ballistic missile shield over North America, according to a source familiar with the document.

Indeed, federal sources say, missile defence will remain off the government's front burner at least until after the budget, expected in late February. A senior federal official discounted recent reports that the U.S. government has lost patience with Ottawa on this issue. "Certainly, we can't wait forever. But it's not as though they've told us it has to be tomorrow, next week, or even next month."

The army's rise to senior status is intended to give Ottawa more troops with which to advance Mr. Martin's interventionist agenda for dealing with failed or fragile states. "That's where the gaps are," a source said. "We saw that in Afghanistan and Haiti."

Two weeks ago, the government named General Rick Hillier, the former chief of land staff who has pushed hard for greater funding for the army relative to the other two armed services, as chief of defence staff.

During last June's election campaign, Mr. Martin promised to increase defence spending between $2-billion and $3-billion, spread over five years, as well as add 5,000 new regular force troops and 3,000 reservists.

Senior DND officials, including Gen. Hillier, have questioned whether the promise of new troops would be kept.

The foreign policy review, and the budget to follow, will reaffirm the government's commitment to boosting troop levels, sources say. "The debate now is over whether you do it in three or four years, or six. [Defence Minister Bill] Graham wants it in three, which means aggressive training and recruiting."

However, major new annual military spending is not likely, certainly not the several billion called for by Auditor-General Sheila Fraser, among others. Instead, the government will commit itself to a phased, 10-year plan for rebuilding the military, a government source said.

The foreign service initiative is intended to redress a perceived imbalance in the deployment of Canada's diplomats, whereby two-thirds of total diplomatic staff are in Canada and one-third abroad. Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew is determined to bring this ratio closer to the G8 average of 50 per cent, a source said.

The changes to foreign aid stem from a perception at senior levels in the government that the Canadian International Development Agency's resources are spread far too thinly, with many small aid projects budgeted at less than $5-million. "You can't have an impact that way," a source familiar with the review said.

This foreign policy review, the fourth by a federal government since the 1970s, was originally intended to be released last November. The long delay, a source close to the process said, is largely because, unlike earlier reviews, it ranges across several major federal departments.

"It's extremely difficult . . . when you try to get officials from four departments together, they all have a wish to see themselves reflected in the product," the source said.


----------



## NMPeters

Although this is just an article and nothing is engraved in stone, if what they are saying about the Army being elevated to the senior service position is true, all I can say is "WOW"


----------



## Edward Campbell

That rationale for 'elevating' the Army is to be seen to be doing something without the need to add any new money.  This is a classic case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.


----------



## George Wallace

That Paul wouldn't happen to be Paul Martin, would it?   ;D

GW


----------



## George Wallace

I really can't forsee too much in the way of changing priorities or "Seniority" of the Services.  Both the Air Force and Navy would have to be "Beefed Up" to support the Army, or we will be in the same sh it, just a different pile.

GW


----------



## Gunnar

But the army is much more visible to the media.  Once they spend all the money on the army, they can look like they're beefing up the CF, when really all they're doing is destroying the Air Force and the Navy.  Then later, they can "equalize" the spending between departments, and reduce the "disproportionate" spending on the Army.  End result:  more cuts, with lots of press-sponsored hoopla about how they're improving things.  After all, if you get rid of armies, you get rid of war, right?

And the sheeple will elect them again.  Bloody Liberals.

Just another bitter comment, from another disillusioned Canadian...


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Ahhh the tangled web they weave.

This must be how he is comming up with the 5000 troops it will be made up of sub drivers and fighter jockeys.  

man why do Canadians continue to put up with this.

I really hope the Conservatives take it to task if this "restructuring" is to take effect instead of fresh capital and fresh personal.


----------



## FSTO

Hopefully this is just another uninformed reporter (and PMO Staffer) talking out of their ass. I am sure Admirals Buck (VCDS) and Maddison (DCDS) are ready to take Hillier behind the woodshed and set him strait.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050127/POLICY27/TPFront/TopStories


----------



## dutchie

What a joke. I love the fact that the Army is getting more money, but not at the expense of our Navy and Air Force brothers. A classic shell game. But don't worry, I'm sure this new dough and 5000 troops will be put to good use in the creation of a Peacekeeper Bde. I've recently seen a lot of new articles on this quintessential Liberal perversion of a defence plan, and it looks like the idea is gathering more steam.

Anyhow, not to get off topic. I have lost complete faith in the Liberal government regarding National Defence. Even after: the morale and pay problems of the 90's, 9/11, after Sea Kings fall out of the sky, after CF18's are grounded due to rot, after a sailor died aboard the first sailing of our 'previously enjoyed' sub, after our Allies asked for more help than we could provide.......they refuse to fund the military to even a remotely reasonable level.   

In their dream world, we all would be either DART members, or dedicated Peacekeepers......kinda like a Federal Peace Corps. 

The new CF slogan (think Bud Light): "More waste, less killing!"

No thanks.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I find it almost humorous that some of you actually think  PC gov't would make a difference given all political parites track record.  More of the same.


----------



## muskrat89

I feel for you guys... I don't even know what to say anymore  :-\

I love Canada, and am proud to be Canadian (to the point that I still won't get my US Citizenship) but Canadian politics, for as long as I've seen it in action  - is a joke. Really some  most of this stuff you read - is exactly like what you would read in some 3rd rate banana republic. I mean - it gets so outrageous sometimes that SURELY they can't believe they are fooling anybody  :


----------



## Horse_Soldier

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> I feel for you guys... I don't even know what to say anymore   :-\
> 
> I love Canada, and am proud to be Canadian (to the point that I still won't get my US Citizenship) but Canadian politics, for as long as I've seen it in action   - is a joke. Really some   most of this stuff you read - is exactly like what you would read in some 3rd rate banana republic. I mean - it gets so outrageous sometimes that SURELY they can't believe they are fooling anybody   :


But they are fooling a lot of people - they get re-elected.  I wonder what that says about the collective IQ of the citizenry of our great nation.


----------



## Michael OLeary

I think you are confusing the relative roles of the Services within the CF in foreign policy development leading to current manning and funding priorities with the precedence claim of the Navy as "Senior Service" based on British traditions of predence of the Arms and Services. Two very different things, there was no mention of the Canadian Navy's establishment in 1910 in comparison to the dates of authorization for existing Army Regiments in the CF.


----------



## Navalsnpr

FTSO,

Below are the references in the article that you indicate that the "Army is the Senior Service".

*And it will signal the formal elevation of the Canadian army to a senior position within the military, with sea and air forces reduced to support roles.

The army's rise to senior status is intended to give Ottawa more troops with which to advance Mr. Martin's interventionist agenda for dealing with failed or fragile states. "That's where the gaps are," a source said. "We saw that in Afghanistan and Haiti."  * 

This article has no mention of the historical data that gives the Naval Service the distinction of the Senior Service. As Michael indicated, this is set in the history books as the Navy was established before the otehr servics.


----------



## Spooks

It's at times like these where I like to take a moment out of my life and reflect on our country. The great accomplishments we have made, the redefining political decision over the years and then I goto my internet browser, and find a link that has brought me much happiness. I'm sure many of you have seen it, but that doesn't mean that you can't take times to watch it just that once more. It fits well with this subject in my opinion.

http://www.cbc.ca/MRL/clips/mondayreport/kabul_greetings.rm

-Spooks


----------



## GGboy

What a crock. I hope the new CDS isn't going along with this, but I'm afraid he probably is given Gen. Hillier's past pronouncements on the subject.
If the fiasco surrounding the long delayed deployment of the DART hasn't taught the government the futility of this kind of thinking I don't think anything will make an impression on their institutional stupidity. What's the point of having a big, high-tech army (and I'm not convinced that this will happen anyway) if we don't have the sea- or airlift to take them anywhere? Let alone support them once they arrive ...
This could be a disaster in the making for the CF. We can only hope this is a story planted by the pointy heads in Fgn Affairs or the PMO.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

I don't think that being mad at the lack of military spending by the government makes me any less proud to be Canadian.   I think the contrary is true.   I feel that by voicing your concerns you are showing that hey i am a proud Canadian and don't like the fact that you try and give us the shaft all the time.    

Given the conservatives track record i would tend to agree but a change is due.   And having the minority may actually be a good thing.   They may be forced to spend more on us to keep thier government in place.


----------



## JBP

You know what's funny, on my first BMQ weekend training course (Jan 21-23), our WO was explaining the roles of the other services due to someone asking a question. He said, "no other job in the CF would exist without the army or Land Force Command, every other trade exists to support us..." and such forth. I suppose, in a way it's true, but not to the extend he was making it out to be...

This is a sad day, but I think it's true, even before BMQ, our Sgt. was explaining the new CDS was "an army guy" and hardup for infantry and Land Forces and that they all expected the Army to get a nice boost. They can't wait it seems actually....

We'll see.... But this is what they're teaching the newbies!


----------



## FSTO

Navalsnpr said:
			
		

> FTSO,
> 
> Below are the references in the article that you indicate that the "Army is the Senior Service".
> 
> *And it will signal the formal elevation of the Canadian army to a senior position within the military, with sea and air forces reduced to support roles.
> 
> The army's rise to senior status is intended to give Ottawa more troops with which to advance Mr. Martin's interventionist agenda for dealing with failed or fragile states. "That's where the gaps are," a source said. "We saw that in Afghanistan and Haiti."  *
> 
> This article has no mention of the historical data that gives the Naval Service the distinction of the Senior Service. As Michael indicated, this is set in the history books as the Navy was established before the other services.




I am not talking about the Historical issues of who is or isn't the "Senior Service" . I was referring to the article in which the Army needs in regards to personnel and equipment will take precedence over the needs of the Navy and Air Force. The author quotes a contact close to the review who said that Navy and Air Force needs that are not in support of the Army will be put lower on the priority list.

To me this means:

JSS will go ahead (I think that this is a terrible concept compounded by the idea that we only need 3, if we are going to get them then get 4)

Frigate mid life refits will be cut back severely

No replacement for the 280

No common hull project for future FFH and DDG replacements

Maybe get a OSPV

We will be confined to coastal waters except for the JSS. As a result we will again be depending on other nations to give us the protection when the JSS sails into dangerous waters (due to the nature of conflict at sea, what may be safe on day could be very dangerous the next).
Then when a crisis occurs in areas that are close to the sea shore, we will have to hope that there will be protection for us instead of bringing our own protection with us.

Haven't the politicos learned from the past at all? Since WWII it has been the Navy that has been able to react the quickest to a crisis and has been the first one to show the flag when it has been required. If we decide to lose this ability now, we will never get it back.


----------



## Navalsnpr

FTSO,

Definitely agree with all your comments in your last post. 

I think the subject line for the initial post could have been better chosen. I know that I immediately went to the article after seeing the topic and could not find any direct reference to the "Senior Service" issue within the article of which the new topic was to be referring to.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Read this and it may eliviate some of your fears (or entrench them)

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/westview/story/2517726p-2917067c.html

IN LATE DECEMBER, DEFENCE Minister Bill Graham accompanied Lt.-Gen. Rick Hillier to 24 Sussex Drive for a chat with Prime Minister Paul Martin. 
Mr. Martin must have liked what he heard, because soon after he announced that Lt.-Gen. Hillier was to be the next Chief of Defence Staff (CDS). This appointment is significant. 

It means that both Martin and Graham believe Hillier is capable of helping develop and implement a new defence policy, strategic plan and structure for the Canadian Forces. Most importantly, they believe that this new military plan will be consistent with the new central pillar of Canada's foreign policy -- the 'responsibility to protect'. 

This principle holds that a nation is sovereign if, and only if, it takes responsibility for protecting the rights of all its citizens. If any state abdicates that responsibility, its sovereignty begins to erode. In extreme cases, if the human rights of citizens are utterly ignored, that country will be judged a 'failed state'. 

The community of nations then must pick up the 'responsibility to protect'. This might mean simply coming to the aid of the ailing state, or pressuring it with trade sanctions. In the most desperate cases --- where there is civil strife, ethnic cleansing or confirmed genocide -- outside states will undertake armed intervention in order to protect the life, liberty and other basic human rights of the civilian population. 

What Martin and Graham want to see is a military leadership that is capable of responding, in concert with like-minded nations, in a manner that is precisely tailored to the specific goals of any humanitarian intervention. Each operation will be different, because each failed state will come apart in its own particular way. Enter Rick Hillier. 

By great good fortune, this foreign policy requires exactly the kind of army that Hillier has been trying to construct during his time as Chief of Land Staff (CLS) -- rapidly deployable, agile, capable of speedily gathering intelligence, quick to communicate and integrate that information, always aware of the key elements in the 'battlespace', tactically nimble, and able to fight in any environment. 

That is the kind of army that Hillier was shaping. And now, it will be the kind of Canadian Forces he will want to be able to draw upon. 

The question is: What will the new CDS need, in the way of personnel and equipment, to make this new Forces come about?


Personnel 

Hillier never gives a speech without mentioning the ordinary men and women of the Canadian Forces. This is not just PR spin; it reflects a practical reality. Of all the highly specialized equipment that Canada puts in the field, the trained soldier/pilot/sailor is the most valuable and irreplaceable. 

Hillier wants to go hard on recruiting, both for regular forces and for reservists. He knows that maintaining a high tempo of missions requiring rapid deployment will depend on having well-trained, well-prepared reservists at the ready. A substantial fraction of competent reservists included in each mission will allow regular-forces personnel to take some 'down time', as needed, between rotations. 

The readiness of reservists, in turn, will require legislation, similar to that in the U.S., that gives job guarantees to all those in the Reserves who are called to duty, whether for training or deployment overseas.


Land Equipment


For any expeditionary force, land equipment must be mobile, transportable and fast-moving. That means no more tanks. Hillier was a tanker. He loves tanks. But he has come to realize that these heavy, tracked vehicles are no longer giving the CF 'value-for-money'. 

On Oct. 29, 2003, Hillier and then-defence minister John McCallum announced the procurement of the Mobile Gun System (MGS), a variant of the wheeled Light Armoured Vehicle. The gnashing of teeth over this decision has not ceased to this day. But Hillier has made his choice. The Mobile Gun System is actually one of a trio of 'fire support' vehicles, which also includes two missile-launchers -- the LAV TUA and Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle. All three of these vehicles are based on the Army's LAV III infantry carrier. 

The controversial MGS was originally developed for the special requirements of the U.S. Army's highly mobile Stryker Brigades. The LAV TUA and MMEV are both based on existing Canadian Forces weapons systems -- the M113 TUA and ADATS -- but placed on the new, wheeled chassis. These new systems will be faster than the older tracked versions. More importantly, they need no heavy transport trailers to deploy them. LAVs can be driven -- they don't need to be dragged. 

The U.S. Defense Department has been very impressed with another Canadian LAV, the reconnaissance Coyote, and asked Canada to bring our Coyotes to Afghanistan. If we had joined the 'intervention' in Iraq, our Coyotes would have been asked along as well. The capabilities of the Coyote fit well with Hillier's emphasis on 'situational awareness' of the 'battlespace'. 

Serving a complementary function is the artillery's surveillance and targeting drone, the Tactical UAV. Sensor information from the TUAV and the Coyote are meant to be integrated. This sensor data, along with rapid information processing and exchange, will allow for effective command, tactical manoeuvring, and a real reduction in the 'fog of war'. 

The trials and tribulations of the Sperwer TUAVs in Afghanistan were well-documented in the press. Hillier plans to appoint a senior officer to take charge of the TUAV project. 


Air Force assets


For sovereignty patrols, the Canadian Forces already has upgraded versions of the CF-18, an interceptor, and the CP-140 Aurora, specialized for maritime surveillance. But Hillier will also be looking for air force assets that can play an important role in overseas deployments. (He'll need new helicopters of varying sizes for various roles, but this topic is too big to explore in this column.) The CC-130 Hercules is a tactical airlifter best suited to moving CF personnel and equipment from one location to another within the region of conflict. Canada's Hercules fleet is in bad shape. Early models need to be replaced now -- ideally with 'J' models. 

The CC-150 Polaris has a longer range than the Hercules, but it is only suitable for troops and light freight. Furthermore, it can only land where undamaged airports are available. 

Any rapidly deployable expeditionary force needs a military-style, long-range strategic airlifter, with some degree of 'rough-field' performance. The U.S. Boeing C-17 is an excellent aircraft, but alas, the price tag puts it out of our range. Hillier has said that he intends to stop the practice of endlessly studying systems that DND cannot possibly afford. 

In the past, the CF has leased strategic airlifters. For example, enormous Antonov 124s were leased for the recent DART deployment. This is one solution to the problem, but there are other airlift options available. In past View articles, we have recommended the purchase of a handful of new or refurbished Ilyushin IL-76s. Others have proposed long-term leases of Ilyushins. 

If the CF is to participate in multinational operations intended to prevent genocide, re-establish the stability in volatile regions, or protect the citizens of 'failed states', strategic airlift is a conundrum that must be resolved.


Seagoing Vessels


For sovereignty patrol, four of the Navy's frigates are quite capable of securing the outer edges of Canada's 200 nautical miles. For monitoring waters closer in, smaller offshore patrol vessels (OPVs) are being considered. Again, Hillier will be looking for sea-based assets that can support an overseas deployment. The Navy has an idea for a Joint Support Ship (JSS) at a cost of more than $2 billion. This misguided JSS project attempts to combine the job of transporting the army overseas with myriad other roles, including carrying huge quantities of fuel. 

The cumbersome JSS is unlikely to fit in with Hillier's timeline or budget. This oversized project will likely be broken down into separate, more affordable ventures. For example, smaller-hulled vessels can satisfy the Navy's requirement for at-sea replenishment ships. 

On the other hand, delivering the Army and its heavy equipment (eg, large engineering vehicles for reconstruction projects) requires Roll On/Roll Off (RO/RO) transport vessels. The U.S. Army already has such ships in service -- the Theater Support Vessels. Each of these RO/RO catamarans is much faster than DND's planned JSS and will present a much smaller target in a combat zone. 

Hillier's new, more coherent, more highly integrated strategic plan will require, as a first step, the reallocation of funds recommended by former defence minister McCallum. But even striking some of the high-priced 'fantasy' projects off the DND shopping-list might not free up enough cash for the force structure desired. 

An effective expeditionary force, with highly trained, specialized personnel, along with the appropriate support from air and maritime commands, will likely require an increase in defence spending. The prime minister has already said that he would be open to an increase in the defence budget, once General Hillier is chief. 

Perhaps Martin could be reassured that, for the first time in living memory, Canadian defence policy (and spending priorities) would reflect both the foreign policy of this country and the expectations of its citizens.


Dianne DeMille is editor and Stephen Priestley is researcheréeditor of the online Canadian American Strategic Review [http://www.sfu.ca/casr] 



Plans for the future of the CF


----------



## ctjj.stevenson

Good afternoon. 

We actually had a discussion about the subject of the senior service on the Cadet-World Forum, and here are the links so that you may view them.

*http://www.cadet-world.com/cwforums/showthread.php?t=5879

http://www.cadet-world.com/cwforums/showthread.php?t=5878*

Good day!


----------



## McG

There seems to be a lot of people getting worked up about not very much at all.

 . . . well, not much except a lot of assumptions.



			
				Gunnar said:
			
		

> they can look like they're beefing up the CF, when really all they're doing is destroying the Air Force and the Navy.


Destroying or assigning new primary rolls?



			
				Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> This must be how he is comming up with the 5000 troops it will be made up of sub drivers and fighter jockeys.


His promise was clear.   5,000 new troops, not 5,000 relocated troops.   In any case, those â Å“fighter jockeysâ ? do provide sp to the Army. It is called CAS.   



			
				Caesar said:
			
		

> I love the fact that the Army is getting more money, but not at the expense of our Navy and Air Force brothers.


It does not state that cuts will be made to the Navy & Air Force.   Their rolls may change, but new/under developed capabilities will need new/additional funding.   Less money for the ASW role may mean more money for amphibious capabilities, sea based theatre air defence, or sea based cruise missiles (all of which support Army operations).



			
				GGboy said:
			
		

> What a crock. I hope the new CDS isn't going along with this, but I'm afraid he probably is given Gen. Hillier's past pronouncements on the subject.


Going along with what?   The increased emphasis Army, or the cuts that are not suggested anywhere in the article?

Keep in mind; this was a foreign policy review, not a defence review.   Force structure must also consider domestic concerns such as defence, security, aid to the civil power, disaster relief, sovereignty, etc.   At the end of the day, we still do not have a White Paper.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

" At the end of the day, we still do not have a White Paper"
ding ding

not that they followed the last one either.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

How about shrinking the officer class to better reflect the troop structure of the forces today, with the money saved there you could hire about 1500 new troops.

And yea CFL i have to agree, White paper? What white paper? oh this dusty old thing......


----------



## Brad Sallows

This will last about as long as it takes someone to tug the PM's ear long enough to remind him that the navy is the Liberal service-of-choice whenever the government wants Canadian participation in some multinational venture in a hurry, with the option to bug out in a hurry.

It does read to me like there may be changes of emphasis within limited means.  The army has had to eat some capabilities (combat support platoons in the infantry, some logistical functions reduced, heavy armour) to sustain commitments; it would not surprise me if the air force is directed to divert more of its effort to strategic and operational airlife and tactical support.  As for the navy, there is no point deploying defenceless joint support-and-command ships.  One motivated belligerent with the right hardware and it is all over but the dropping of the wreaths at sea.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> This will last about as long as it takes someone to tug the PM's ear long enough to remind him that the navy is the Liberal service-of-choice whenever the government wants Canadian participation in some multinational venture in a hurry, with the option to bug out in a hurry.
> 
> It does read to me like there may be changes of emphasis within limited means.   The army has had to eat some capabilities (combat support platoons in the infantry, some logistical functions reduced, heavy armour) to sustain commitments; it would not surprise me if the air force is directed to divert more of its effort to strategic and operational airlife and tactical support.   As for the navy, there is no point deploying defenceless joint support-and-command ships.   One motivated belligerent with the right hardware and it is all over but the dropping of the wreaths at sea.



I agree, but this is not about policy much less operational effectiveness.   It is all about smoke, mirrors and the next election.   *"See,"* the Liberals will say, *"we did something about defence and we didn't steal money from health care to buy aircraft carriers, either ... Vote Liberal! Defend health care and the pogey!â ?*


----------



## muskrat89

> It is all about smoke, mirrors and the next election



Thank you ROJ - that's what created my exasperation. Nothing is done it seems, with pure motives. Everything is done for political gain, posturing, patronage, etc. - and always at the expense of something, or someone else...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I guess this coming year will see what the future will hold for the Navy and Air Force and if the death knell is coming (which I suspect it is). Whats sad and I have said this before is I have no doubt that when the navy and air force get a CDS back in, the army will end up suffering if either the navy and air force get hit hard with cuts by RH. God help us.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I know this is repetitious, but ... I think we need to be a tiny bit understanding.

Canadians want more and more of almost everything ... except taxes.   They do want more defence; they tell the pollsters that time after time, they just don't want to pay for it.   When you ask a simple question like â Å“Should we improve the armed forces?â ? then 75% say *â Å“Yes!â ?* (That means, of course, that every fourth Canadians says: â Å“No, we have enough or, maybe, too much defence already.â ?)   They say the same thing about symphony orchestras and opera houses.   When you change the question, ever so slightly, and say, â Å“Should we improve the armed forces by taking money from another programme?â ? the 'Yes' vote goes way, way down.   When you list several programmes, including health care, amateur sports, education, streets/highways, EI, child care, bilingualism, gun registration, etc and ask Canadians to prioritize them for spending then defence slides all the way down to the bottom of the list â â€œ along with symphony orchestras and opera houses.

Prime Minister Martin understands this, so does Stephen Harper.   Martin is offering smoke and mirrors because that is all Canadians want, Harper will provide the same when it's his turn in the barrel.


----------



## Sheerin

who's to say that either a Navy or an Air Force person will be CDS in the forseeable future?

How long is the posting for CDS or is it basically at the pleasure of the PM?


----------



## Wizard of OZ

I am sure they will get there turn and yup the army will suffer later if the cuts are to deep.  memory is long so the vengance will sting even more.


----------



## Wizard of OZ

Rusty Old Joint said:
			
		

> I know this is repetitious, but ... I think we need to be a tiny bit understanding.
> 
> Canadians want more and more of almost everything ... except taxes.   They do want more defence; they tell the pollsters that time after time, they just don't want to pay for it.   When you ask a simple question like â Å“Should we improve the armed forces?â ? then 75% say *â Å“Yes!â ?* (That means, of course, that every fourth Canadians says: â Å“No, we have enough or, maybe, too much defence already.â ?)   They say the same thing about symphony orchestras and opera houses.   When you change the question, ever so slightly, and say, â Å“Should we improve the armed forces by taking money from another programme?â ? the 'Yes' vote goes way, way down.   When you list several programmes, including health care, amateur sports, education, streets/highways, EI, child care, bilingualism, gun registration, etc and ask Canadians to prioritize them for spending then defence slides all the way down to the bottom of the list â â€œ along with symphony orchestras and opera houses.
> 
> Prime Minister Martin understands this, so does Stephen Harper.   Martin is offering smoke and mirrors because that is all Canadians want, Harper will provide the same when it's his turn in the barrel.



Do you think Harper will get a turn or will his party implode over its lack of leadership and nasty infighting over issues as same sex couples and the what not the next year should be interesting.  If i can find the article on the split in the conservative ranks i will post it.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

"Harper will provide the same when it's his turn in the barrel"

exactly, if he gets a shot at it.


----------



## dutchie

CFL said:
			
		

> "Harper will provide the same when it's his turn in the barrel"
> 
> exactly, if he gets a shot at it.


that's a big 'if' the way he's going. Championing the traditional definition of marriage issue (which I support), is almost certain death to his chances at the PM's office. He should leave that to the fringe hard-right to beat the war drum, focus on traditional right issues and let Martin and Co. hang themselves when the sponsorshiop inquiry points their finger at him and his sheister predessesor.....then when he's PM, kill the same-sex marriage bill/law.

Sorry, off topic. 

Blaiminig the Cdn public for lack of interest does not account for all of the shortfalls of our civilian masters regarding the neglect it has shown for the CF. There is NO desire (it seems) in Ottawa amongst the Grits to do anything but superficial, flashy, 'media-friendly' shuffles of dough that originate in DND in the first place. A real funding increase to a reasonable level is just not going to happen. Period. NO POLITICAL WILL.


----------



## GGboy

MCG said:
			
		

> There seems to be a lot of people getting worked up about not very much at all.
> ...
> Going along with what?  The increased emphasis Army, or the cuts that are not suggested anywhere in the article?
> ...
> Keep in mind; this was a foreign policy review, not a defence review.  Force structure must also consider domestic concerns such as defence, security, aid to the civil power, disaster relief, sovereignty, etc.  At the end of the day, we still do not have a White Paper.



Actually, strictly speaking it's a defence/foreign policy/international aid policy review. With defence near the bottom of the list ... 

As for Gen. Hillier's opinions on boosting the army and what that means for the navy and air force, here's a Canadian Press story from Oct. 2003:

"In a memo to Gen. Ray Henault, Canada's chief of defence staff, Lt.-Gen. Rick Hillier argues against equipping the navy and air force for many of the overseas operations they now perform, The Ottawa Citizen reported Saturday.
Lt.-Gen. Hillier suggested that in any future war, a U.S.-led coalition would handle air and naval activities and quickly gain the upper hand in those areas.
"The reality of the emerging security environment suggests that it is unlikely that the CF (Canadian Forces) will be called upon to fight in 'blue skies or blue waters' and the overall value to our country of equipping to do so would be minimal compared to the impact of providing precision land effects," Lt.-Gen. Hillier wrote.
Blue waters refers to warships going beyond Canada's 200-nautical-mile economic zone and taking part in overseas missions. Blue skies involves fighter aircraft missions, one of the key roles of the air force.
Lt.-Gen. Hillier suggested to Gen. Henault that the money earmarked for equipping the navy and air force for such missions should instead be funnelled into outfitting the army with modern gear."

Sounds pretty clear to me. Our soon-to-be CDS wants money spent on the army instead of the air force and navy. Saying nobody's talking about cutting the other services is semantics: if the air force doesn't get the money for new transport a/c then the Hercules fleet will eventually reach 100% unserviceability. Same for the navy's AORs or DDs.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Sheerin said:
			
		

> who's to say that either a Navy or an Air Force person will be CDS in the forseeable future?
> 
> How long is the posting for CDS or is it basically at the pleasure of the PM?



And why can they not be CDS? Wearing CADPAT does not mean that he is more capable then those that don't.


----------



## Jungle

While this is not from official sources, there are some interesting points
Link: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/westview/v-printerfriendly/story/2517726p-2917067c.html

Already posted here: http://army.ca/forums/threads/25977/post-157439.html#msg157439


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Ohh boy, this is going to go downhill quickly...

Guys- I believe what we may be seeing here are what's known as "trial balloons", designed to test reaction to a policy option.

Can we at least agree to keep the discussion above the level of " just wait until my guy is CDS, then there will be payback..."?


----------



## big_johnson1

Well Hillier isn't the first CDS to come along with "big plans" and ideas to "shake up the establishment".. I don't plan on worrying about anything until it happens. Sorta like that pay raise we were supposed to get last fall (lol, maybe they'll just roll it into the '05 FY pay adjustment, due fall 05   ). Keep in mind, the government could be changing again soon, for all we know, Hillier might only be in for a year or two..



Chimo!


----------



## ctjj.stevenson

Hi everybody!

I would believe that in a perfect world, the CDS would fair to all elements of the Canadian Forces. The CDS is the head of all the Canadian Forces, and not just the element that he or she comes from (and makes the rest suffer). 

Let's hope that the future General Hillier will be fair to all the different commands, branches, elements, etc of the Canadian Forces. 

Good day!


----------



## John Nayduk

The Winnipeg Free Press article is interesting to say the least.


----------



## Navalsnpr

I would hope that a soon as someone gets put in the position of CDS, VCDS or DCDS that they no longer would consider themselves Navy, Army or Air Force but tri-service.

It won't take long for that to become noticed.


----------



## big_johnson1

Navalsnpr said:
			
		

> I would hope that a soon as someone gets put in the position of CDS, VCDS or DCDS that they no longer would consider themselves Navy, Army or Air Force but tri-service.



That's a really good point, never thought of it that way..


----------



## Cloud Cover

It seems to me the CDS is supposed to represent the best interest in the defence of Canada and not simply tailor the entire apparatus to support army oversea's operations. 
As for the article, most of the proposals are so lucicrous they must surely be chucked in the gash straight away!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

"always aware of the key elements in the 'battlespace', tactically nimble, and able to fight in any environment."

I think that the upper CF is banking on this (thus a MGS system with shitty survivability).


"IN LATE DECEMBER, DEFENCE Minister Bill Graham accompanied Lt.-Gen. Rick Hillier to 24 Sussex Drive for a chat with Prime Minister Paul Martin. 

Mr. Martin must have liked what he heard, because soon after he announced that Lt.-Gen. Hillier was to be the next Chief of Defence Staff (CDS). This appointment is significant."

Damn he's mastered the art of the politician.  Yeah for us.


----------



## a_majoor

The elevation of the Army to a "position of seniority" really reflects the situation of the past decade. When the government chooses to answer the Global 911 line, they preferentially dispatch an Army battlegroup. OP Apollo in the Persian Gulf and the air war over Kosovo were historical anomalies.

Since the government has decided this is the "best" way to carry out the military leg of foreign policy, the CDS, his staff and all of us fall into line and "make it happen". Our opinions on the relative proportions of Arms of Service are quite irrelevant at this point, although we can hope the CDS is also educating the government on the need for a certain amount of balance (even if just to get this idea off the ground).

As a contrafactual, I will suggest if the Navy had scored a spectacular coup in OP Apollo (hey, that guy in the rowboat is Osama Bin Laden!), or the Air Force had done something equally spectacular in Kosovo, the people in office would have siezed on that to build their plans, no matter how "out to lunch" they may have been in the real world security environment.

This is more a reflection of the Army's relative success in carrying out the missions of the 1990's and 2000's, and could well be a springboard to enhancing the rest of the force as well (We in the Army do need ships and planes to help us do our job).


----------



## Navalsnpr

Feral said:
			
		

> That's a really good point, never thought of it that way..



I strongly believe that if you are in a position where to oversea tri-service personnel, you don't have the luxury to say that you have allegiance to one element. Besides the CDS/VCDS/DCDS, this would include Base/Station/ASU CWO/CPO1's as well because we all know that they have tri-service personnel under their command and thus have to look after the best interests of those personnel regardless of element.

The next few months and years should be an interesting wave to ride based on some of the comments made in this thread and the   
Lt.-Gen. Rick Hillier to be new CDS  thread in the Current Affairs & News section of this site.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> As a contrafactual, I will suggest if the Navy had scored a spectacular coup in OP Apollo (hey, that guy in the rowboat is Osama Bin Laden!), or the Air Force had done something equally spectacular in Kosovo, the people in office would have siezed on that to build their plans, no matter how "out to lunch" they may have been in the real world security environment.



You seem to be implying we did SFA...60% of the total Coalition boardings with one of the smallest naval contigent is nothing to skoff at.   

We did our job during Op Apollo and I feel went above and beyond as did our air dets.

Then again I have noticed how _some_ of the guys in green positively gloat when the air force or navy face cuts so I should not be surprised here anymore.  :


----------



## CBH99

Don't jump on me with your daggers just yet...BUT...

Doesn't it make sense to invest a little more in the army, given our current foreign policy objectives.  I know the official foreign policy and defense review haven't been finished yet, but it doesn't take much imagination to figure out the kinds of rolls our defense and foreign policies are going to play in Mr. Martin's "Responsibility to Protect" standpoint on foreign affairs.  I for one personally am thankful that we finally have a leader who realizes that we have a moral obligation to do whats right, even if there is no national interest at stake.  (Thats the only pro-liberal thing I've said in a very, VERY long time - but credit must be given where it is due).

I certainly don't wish the navy or the air-force any hardships - we need all 3 services to be effective.  Replacements for the 280's, new JSS (Personally, I think high speed catamarans would be more efficient and economical), Herc replacements, etc. are all very important to the effectiveness of our forces.  However, if the government is serious about deploying military forces to a certain hotspot, they typically do so in the form of an army battlegroup.  Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, Afghanistan, East Timor, etc, etc.  If we are to adopt a more aggressive foreign policy, and enforce our credo of "Responsibility to Protect" - perhaps investing a little more in the army for the time being isn't such a bad idea.  Enhanced lethality on the battlefield, enhanced deployability and enhanced capabilities are only going to serve to make us much more efficient at what we do; the navy and the air force - although foreseeably in support roles for the most part - still need to be taken care of for everything to work the way it should.             :threat:


----------



## JBP

Well apparently we waste too much money on kit! Lastnight I was issued my kit for the first time and brought it all home, (about 5 boxes) and my girlfriend was shocked. First thing she said was, "My god, that's a waste of taxpayer money!"...  : She then asked WHY a reservist needed to bring home+have all that equipment. my response....

"Sure hun, we could sure cutback on the equipment we give troops, then when we have to go to war and we loose more men and have more injuries because we don't have what we need or haven't been trained on it, the taxpayers won't mind loosing thier family members!"... I explained we needed the equipment to work efficiently in the field and become proficient with it all. Etc etc. I explained it the most logical+best way I could as a new proud recruit. Most of my kit was new, BRAND new. A couple things (like 1/4) were used already about 2-4 times... Can't complain at all to be honest...

So maybe someone should tell the new CDS the Army doesn't need new equipment or updated equipment...  :   :   :

We don't need a reduced role in any of our forces, just an increase in defense spending. It won't happen, especially with views like my woman's entering the fray... I'll fix that!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Don't forget.  Its not more money but money spent wisely.


----------



## a_majoor

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> You seem to be implying we did SFA...60% of the total Coalition boardings with one of the smallest naval contigent is nothing to skoff at.
> 
> We did our job during Op Apollo and I feel went above and beyond as did our air dets.
> 
> Then again I have noticed how _some_ of the guys in green positively gloat when the air force or navy face cuts so I should not be surprised here anymore. :



I am not gloating, but just pointing out that the people who actually cut the cheques are so clueless as to what the military does that their decision making is based more on the latest headline than any real analysis of the roles, missions etc. If there was a recent headline stating "HMCS Halifax captures Osama Bin Laden and henchmen at sea", then the obvious conclusion by the politicians is that *only* sea power is needed to fight WW IV. Halifax class frigates would start rolling off the slipways, St Jean would be stuffed with Naval recruits, Paul Martin would make glowing speaches at the new Naval support centre in Trois Riviers (the only logical place to build it on a no bid contract, of course...), and Gen Hillier would have to suck it up.

Lets try to see the positive aspects of this. A modest enhancement to the Army can only go so far; in order to carry out a new slate of missions will _require_ the ability to project power overseas, which does mean the requirements for enhancing the Navy and Air Force will be sharply highlighted. Your biggest fans will be the soldiers on the ground who are looking for Naval and air support.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I think Paul Koring, in today's _Globe and mail_, has it about right: no money, reduced combat effectiveness; happy Canadians.   See: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050128/MILITANALY28/TPNational/TopStories 

*Emphasis added*



> Military cost-saving doesn't cut it in the big, bad world
> 
> By PAUL KORING
> Friday, January 28, 2005 - Page A4
> 
> Making the army paramount and ordering the navy and air force to play supporting roles seems like a tidy solution to the government's messy military problems, especially if the army itself is reduced to a peacekeeping role.
> 
> Most usefully, such a policy would eliminate the need to spend massive amounts -- as much as twice the current level of about 1 per cent of GDP -- to restore the Canadian military's grossly degraded combat capability after decades of neglect.
> 
> The government has already decided against new tanks for the army, meaning it will lack the crucial sharp edge of the spear needed for the fighting of wars. If the already limited combat capabilities of the air force and the navy are to be sacrificed in favour of supporting roles to ground forces that are not intended for, or capable of, full-scale combat, then the entire Canadian military will be hobbled.
> 
> Meanwhile, casting the army as a handy, friendly force ready for quasi-military roles such as peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance around the globe should end the embarrassing headlines about missed charter flights, worn-out transport aircraft and dickering over leased ferries that have marred Canadian deployments.
> 
> Turning the air force into FedEx for Canadian peacekeepers and the navy into a fisheries protection force with a couple of nice new grey-painted roll-on, roll-off ships capable of delivering a 600-soldier battalion of peacekeepers and their thinly armoured jeeps anywhere on earth within a month or two, would save many, many billions.
> 
> "From a capital-L Liberal point of view, it makes perfect sense, it plays well to the humanitarian alphabet impulse and it's cheap," says Douglas Ross, a defence analyst and professor of political science at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia.
> 
> *Underplaying -- almost hiding -- the fact that the military's primary role is war-fighting, not orphanage-building or training new police forces in far-off places, has been an ongoing and successful Canadian political ruse.
> 
> Many in uniform still wince at the recruiting poster showing a brave soldier holding a terrified child clutching a teddy bear, but it aptly reflects the image many Canadians want their military to project.*
> 
> Unspoken is a much nastier reality.
> 
> Wreaking havoc, destroying things and killing people are what military forces are supposed to do.
> 
> The capability to do it swiftly, effectively and efficiently while suffering minimal casualties requires sophisticated equipment that also has many secondary and useful capabilities, from search and rescue to rapid reaction for humanitarian assistance.
> 
> Stopping the next Rwandan genocide, shooting down a hijacked airliner bearing down on Place Ville Marie or leading a flotilla of allied warships all require serious and expensive weapons systems and an attitude toward defence far different from former prime minister Jean Chrétien's famous quip about "Boy Scouts with guns."
> 
> 
> That quip may soon be true if the air force gets new transport planes but no replacements for its dwindling and aging supply of CF-18 fighter-bombers and if Canada's four elderly command-and-control destroyers are scrapped without replacement.
> 
> Such a move would perpetuate the myth that Canada's armed forces should only be peacekeepers, says Alain Pellerin, executive director of the pro-military Conference of Defence Associations. "Peacekeepers don't need tanks and submarines and fighter aircraft," he said, scornfully dismissing the notion.
> 
> For decades, while piling on the tasks but steadily cutting funds, successive governments have fed a military Chimera that Canada has a credible combat capability on land, sea and in the air.
> 
> _*Legions of generals and admirals have saluted the toothless monster, unwilling to sacrifice careers by pointing out that an officer-heavy, tradition-rich but shrunken service with insufficient and inadequate equipment didn't really pack much punch.*_
> 
> Adding a few thousand soldiers to the army isn't very expensive.
> 
> It will mean that Canada can keep 1,000, maybe even 2,000, soldiers scattered around the world in Kabul or Port-au-Prince or Bosnia as long as there is no fighting to be done and plenty of time to get them there. (And, most importantly, if some other country will save them if real fighting flares.) But it will also mean that anyone working in a skyscraper in Canada better hope there's a U.S. air national guard unit that can scramble quickly. Meanwhile, Canada's frigates won't be able to venture overseas unless protected by the U.S. Navy.
> 
> It may be long overdue to scrap the notion that Canada is willing to maintain a credible combat capacity in all three environments.
> 
> But replacing it with a policy that makes the army paramount -- and still unfit for war -- saves money without adding credibility.


----------



## Navalsnpr

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Your biggest fans will be the soldiers on the ground who are looking for Naval and air support.



Good to hear those types of comments here.

All elements have their unique roles and their main reason for existing. But we all have to be there to lend support to each other in order to co-exist in the areas of the world we operate in these days.

I'd definitely like to see more tri-service exercises ongoing.


----------



## FSTO

What is that saying about how something abhors a vacuum? Well from my position out here on the coast, thats how things work in Ottawa. Due to a lack of direction from our political masters, the 3 services (Despite Unification, the CF if far from being unified) each try to grab as much of a diminishing pie of money as they can. As a result we have a Navy that focused on ASW on the East Coast and integrated with the US Carrier Battle Groups on the west, an Air Force that decided to pool most of its resources into NORAD (while sucking the life out of the Sea King community) and an Army that had to focus on Peacekeeping. 
As a result, when the odd time that there is a minister that has a clue about the military asks the service chiefs what they need, he gets 3 very different and diverse answers.
If this government gets its act together and comes up with a policy and a focus then maybe the service chiefs can come up with an agreed upon shopping list of requirements. If that means that Army is paramount and the Navy and AirForce are support then so be it, but lets get a focus.

Oh, a_majoor just a couple of things to chew on:

When the VanDoos went to Timor, who got them ashore? The Royal Australian Navy
When the PPCLI went to Afghanistan who got them there? United States Air Force
In addition, who made it safe for the USAF to land in the first place? United States Navy and their Marines

There is a quote from one of Prime Ministers of the UK at the turn of the 20th century, "The Army is a bullet fired from a gun onboard a ship from the Royal Navy"


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I wonder how hollow this will ring amounst the sheep.


----------



## c4th

Horse_Soldier said:
			
		

> But they are fooling a lot of people - they get re-elected.   I wonder what that says about the collective IQ of the citizenry of our great nation.



1 above needing life support.

"The electorate gets the governmentit deserves" - Unknown Source


----------



## Recce41

Pte Joe
 Well , if you don't require kit. You could just turn it back in. You'll learn why you need it all in time. You just tell your girl friend to rethink it. And what the F@#$ did she think you would get. A tshirt, with I'm a soldier on it. So what is the waste of money? If you don't need mucks, you can wear you slippers. If you don't need your parka, can just turn it in. And when it's -50c and you sitting in your trench. You can just say, I'm not cold, My parka and boots were just a waste of money. 
 Yes I'm a prick. For statements like that will cut our budget, not help it.


----------



## a_majoor

FSTO said:
			
		

> Oh, a_majoor just a couple of things to chew on:
> 
> When the VanDoos went to Timor, who got them ashore? The Royal Australian Navy
> When the PPCLI went to Afghanistan who got them there? United States Air Force
> In addition, who made it safe for the USAF to land in the first place? United States Navy and their Marines



Which is why we would be your biggest cheering section so the RCN and RCAF (old names, true, but still have that ring to them) could do the job for us instead.


----------



## Sheerin

> "In a memo to Gen. Ray Henault, Canada's chief of defence staff, Lt.-Gen. Rick Hillier argues against equipping the navy and air force for many of the overseas operations they now perform, The Ottawa Citizen reported Saturday.
> Lt.-Gen. Hillier suggested that in any future war, a U.S.-led coalition would handle air and naval activities and quickly gain the upper hand in those areas.
> "The reality of the emerging security environment suggests that it is unlikely that the CF (Canadian Forces) will be called upon to fight in 'blue skies or blue waters' and the overall value to our country of equipping to do so would be minimal compared to the impact of providing precision land effects," Lt.-Gen. Hillier wrote.



So why do we need an army?  The americans will presumably do all the land fighting too.  So maybe instead of having combat arms we should focus on what the Americans REALLY need, cooks and lots of them.  Oh wait, they probably have those too.

Please tell me you can sense the sarcasm?


----------



## Brad Sallows

So if the Americans invite us to play, and we ask "what do you need", and they say "either two frigates and two squadrons of pilots familiar with the F-18 and willing to learn carrier operations to augment two CVBGs, or a mech brigade with at least one battalion of proper tanks and the knowhow to fight as a brigade", which way does our current readiness dictate we should lean?


----------



## Infanteer

Checkmate.

It's well known that the Army needs work, but lets not cut off the right hand with a knife in order to teach the left hand how to wield one.


----------



## Recce41

Fellas
 The Americans are not end all be all. I have been to Hodd, Knox, Bragg, and Campbell. Not all their tanks are runners. Or are they whole tanks. Last month they removed 4 guns from the Rocky Snow Patrol. Where did they go. IRAQ. They are worse off as we are. Soldiers are getting out faster than they can recuit.


----------



## DeckMonkey

We do have to remember that CDS is not a post for life, and like the politicians they "serve", the faces change, as do the current needs and circumstances. Wait five years and see if any of these dire predictions come true. I think that the spotlight may be put on the Army's needs, (after all, an Army CDS would tend to slant their thinking towards a land strategy, its hard to change thought processes when you have been indoctrinated to it throughout your career) and it certainly deserves to be highlighted, as long as Hillier does not intend to let the Air Force and Navy rot in the meantime. Despite being Navy, I think the Air Force needs a bigger kick right now, but for personnel needs, the Army certainly warrants it. I can wait a few years for new toys...right now we don't even have the crew strength for new ships, and a lot of brand new Ordinary Seamen to fill the majority of the racks. 
      Let themselves spin into a frenzy, and just notice how little of our life actually changes because of it.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Hey DeckMonkey there are no "toys" , they are basic necessities for a half decent Navy. That being said, I totally agree with the last sentence of your post.   "evolutions".


----------



## McG

> *Navy, air force will still play major roles, Martin insists *
> PM won't reveal details of leaked review making army primary branch of military
> By CAMPBELL CLARK
> From Friday's Globe and Mail
> 28 Jan 05
> 
> FREDERICTON â â€ Prime Minister Paul Martin sought yesterday to deliver reassurance that Canada's navy and air force will retain a major role in national defence despite leaked plans to make the army the primary branch of the military.
> 
> While Mr. Martin would not comment in detail until the foreign-policy review is published in coming weeks, ministers publicly confirmed the broad lines of reforms outlined in a report in The Globe and Mail yesterday.
> 
> The leaked policy paper calls for the army to be given the primary role within the military, with the navy and air force given support functions; for foreign aid to be focused on a far smaller list of countries; and for more foreign-service officers to be posted abroad rather than in Ottawa.
> 
> Mr. Martin insisted yesterday that the navy and air force will still be important, but declined to address specifics.
> 
> "Obviously, the detailed answer to your question will wait until the documents come out," he said. "But let me tell you -- and this has certainly been confirmed with [incoming Chief of Defence Staff] General [Rick] Hillier -- and that is that all of the various services are going to play a very important role in the defence of Canada and the enhancement of our role in the world."
> 
> Defence Minister Bill Graham refused to take questions, however, on the early leak of a policy that will undoubtedly cause grumbling within Canada's military.
> 
> The Prime Minister said the foreign policy paper is intended to ensure that Canada plays a major part "in terms of both the defence of North America and our role in the world," and that the aim was to ensure Canada picks its spots in foreign affairs.
> 
> "We intend to focus, whether we're talking about our activities in North America or whether we're talking about our activities in Africa or in terms of the emerging economies," Mr. Martin said.
> 
> International Co-operation Minister Aileen Carroll said Canada does want to focus its aid on fewer countries -- not reducing overall foreign-aid spending, but placing bigger sums in fewer countries and working in conjunction with other aid donors such as Britain, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden.
> 
> "Obviously, if you're going to work with fewer than 157 countries and get it down to considerably less, there will be countries that we will gradually move off. We have done so very successfully with Thailand and other countries, and we definitely will be doing so, not in an abrupt manner, but certainly in a definitive manner, at the outcome of this," she said.
> 
> That does not mean all aid will be stopped to countries that are relatively affluent in global terms, such as Russia or China, because Canada will continue to stress the building of institutions as part of its agenda to promote good governance, Ms. Carroll said.
> 
> Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew declined to indicate the scope of the redeployment of foreign-service officers that is planned under the review, saying only that he wants a "substantial increase" in the number posted in embassies and consulates abroad, rather than at the Foreign Affairs Department. "Right now we only have 25 per cent of our diplomats who are in international missions. And 75 per cent are at the headquarters. This is the lowest proportion of all G8 countries," Mr. Pettigrew said. "I want to increase it."
> 
> NDP parliamentary leader and defence critic Bill Blaikie said, "It's important to have more boots on the ground so we can be a meaningful resource to the international community for genocide prevention and humanitarian assistance.'' But he warned that the shift in government priorities might cripple the navy and the air force. We "can't let the other two services go into decline in order to do this," he said in a telephone interview from Manitoba.
> 
> And Mr. Blaikie cautioned that there would be no NDP support for more money unless it generated a military more capable of operating independently.
> 
> "Whatever increase in defence spending the NDP might countenance . . . it's not to make us a better inter-operable army for American foreign and defence policy."
> 
> At the same time, Mr. Martin indicated that officials from Canada, Mexico and the United States are working on nailing down a date for a summit with U.S. President George W. Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox.
> 
> ...   (Full Article)


----------



## Slim

Although I love the idea of the Army getting more troopies and funding I think its a crying shame for us to dial back the Navy and Airforce. We always seem to forget that these two services play a* CRUCIAL * role in the layered defense of Canada and greatly aid deployments overseas!

WhaT happens when out troops are suck in some third world sh*thole one day and need to be quickly evacuated under extreme circumstances. We'll be crying for the Navy and Airforce then!

Slim


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Don't you know Slim.  We won't go anywhere without being intertwined with our allies.  I'm sure they'd be more then happy to save us.


----------



## Kirkhill

> WhaT happens when out troops are suck in some third world sh*thole one day and need to be quickly evacuated under extreme circumstances. We'll be crying for the Navy and Airforce then!



The problem is, Slim, that while it seems that many Air Force and Navy types would love to be able to help the Army types "get there" and "get out of there"  they have got precious little useable kit available to do the job.


----------



## Steel Badger

The government would be making a huge error if they promote the army above all else....

So, I have to ask...is this a cunning plan to refocus the attention of the public on fixing some of the more blatant shortfalls in the army while funding it by shorting the RCAF and RCN...

Lessee

In order to properly support the army, The RCN and RCAF must INCREASE:   !!

To witt....

RCN

Roll-on Roll of Transport / Support vessels (with helo capability).....To transport the Army's kit for deployments
(What price HMCS Bonaventure now?)

More corvettes to guard the coasts and free our Frigates to escort the Ro-Ro's

RCAF

Heavy Transport Aircraft to move the army's heavy kit........not to mention air drop our Airborne troops.....

Improved, "NATO Inter-operable" fighters to escort same....


Decent (read: Blackhawks) Tac Hel to allow the army to air assault...NOT the "Milverado" solution of the Griffon....


TAC AIr support in some form of Hel Gunship or CL85 Tiltwing.......to protect our ground forces  (and make up for the lack of panzers to some degree)

To have a strong Army, we require a strong Airforce and Navy as well.......


----------



## McG

Steel Badger said:
			
		

> The government would be making a huge error if they promote the army above all else....


I don't think so.   It only will be a mistake if they promote the Army at the expense of everything else.


----------



## Slim

MCG said:
			
		

> I don't think so.   It only will be a mistake if they promote the Army at the expense of everything else.



Well I think that what we're all reading into this and what we're all deathly afraid of! I don't know why the Liberals are detroying our CF one element at a time, but its a crime to do so and too late we're all going to wake up realizing that this mistake may be irreversible!

God help this country if we need those services and they aren't there!

Slim


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

BTW STell Badger there is no RCN and RCAF any longer...haven't been since Unification. I suggest for clarity sake you don't refer to these entities as such.


----------



## Marty

Hi all , Geeez I dont know where you guys have been all this time , but it seems pretty obvious to me   ( a civvy ) that this countrys focus has been on the Army for some time now . Nobody has mentioned yet that mabey the reason why the Army is coming to the forefront (officiially ) is that when you see a storey about the CF its always the Army ! Nobody knows what the Navy or the Air Force has been doing for some time now . What is it that you all expect the MPs ( members of parliment , not Meatheads ) and the Gov to concentrate on ? After all these people are trying to get relected .............(pension). Of course they are going to try and make it look like they are putting the money where it needs to go.I know Im going to get the $#@! kicked out of me for this .........but oh well .


----------



## George Wallace

Well Marty, let's put it this way......I am sure that all those Navy and Air Force types out there just love to be called "Soldiers".  I am sure the widow of that Naval Officer who died in the Sub is glad that CBC mentioned the death of a Canadian Soldier in reference to that incident.  I am sure all our Air Crews are glad that they are considered "Soldiers" too.  It really makes me glad to hear a Civie talk about tanks, when there are none within thousands of miles.......it seems that to them anything that is big and painted green is a "tank", even if it has wheels and no turret.  Sure the Army is in the News.......because our media and civilian population can't tell the difference between apples and oranges.

GW


----------



## mainerjohnthomas

This is going to sound like heresy coming from a mud marcher like myself, but making the army the preeminent service is a load of hooey.  The jet jockies haven't got the firepower to keep the skies above a brigade front clean, nor the transport to deploy and support the troops we have without begging the Yanks or Brits for help (or renting cast off Soviet equipment).  Our navy can't defend the coast we have, let alone give us support and security for a sealift and landing.  If we are the pre-eminent arm, our tendons are already half cut, and putting a splint on us at the expense of chopping off both our legs doesn't seem like much help.  The 5000 troops we are promised, will that about balance the cuts we had to make from each line company in exchange for getting the LAV and TOW upgrades?  I may puke.  Our army is the preeminent arm now, kept strong by first world training on third world gear (sure we have some cutting edge toys, but they really stand out don't they).  My father was bitter when he got out in the fifties because we couldn't even field two divisions any more.  Myself, I never participated in one division level exercise or deployment in my entire carrrer.  I got out when they started telling us we had to cancel training rotations to provide funding for current deployment levels.  Sounds like not a whole lot has changed eh?


----------



## George Wallace

mainerjohnthomas

It doesn't sound like heresy to me.......more along the lines of a little common dog fu      sense.   

Gw


----------



## Navalsnpr

And thus the great debate on unification continues!!
Time to put your lids on! :warstory:


----------



## Edward Campbell

There is an interesting piece in today's _Globe and Mail_* which highlights, I think, the dilemma facing Paul Martin and the Liberals.



> End freeloading image, defence analyst says
> 
> American urges Canada to join U.S. efforts in coastal defences under NORAD pact
> 
> By BETH GORHAM
> Canadian Press
> Monday, January 31, 2005 - Page A8
> 
> WASHINGTON -- Canadians do not need to break the bank to help dispel the perception among some Americans that Canada is freeloading when it comes to defence, a top U.S. military analyst says.
> 
> Informal talks are under way to expand the North American Aerospace Defence agreement to include land and sea defences.
> 
> Dwight Mason, a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Canada should consider pledging to join forces with the United States in coastal defence.
> 
> "Canadians have an opportunity here to change the way the United States thinks about things," Mr. Mason said in an interview. "Canada can do lots of things without spending money that would change the views of a lot of people down here."
> 
> Deciding whether to join the U.S. missile-defence program is the biggest issue on the table, but participating in coastal defences under NORAD would be a major sign of Canada's commitment to protecting North America, he said.
> 
> "It's not free," Mr. Mason continued. "But it doesn't cost much more if you're devoting more resources to coastal defence and less elsewhere."
> 
> A sweeping review of Canada's foreign policy is due soon. "Canada will obviously make its own decision on missile defence," Mr. Mason said. "And if [Americans] just say 'Spend more,' we aren't really helping. It's not very helpful to express vague concerns."
> 
> Yet the decline in Canada's military capabilities is increasingly apparent to U.S. officials, Mr. Mason said. Canada is running budget surpluses and investing much more heavily in health care and other domestic programs than in its military. "It's just more visible now. The mist has dispersed a bit."
> 
> There may not be any unrealistic expectations that Canada would spend lavishly on a general upgrading of all its military capabilities, but U.S. officials probably are looking for faster movement on replacing the air force's CF-18 jet fighters and the navy's frigates that are critical to safeguarding North America from terrorists, he said.
> 
> The U.S. view of Canada's defence policy was brought into sharp focus recently, amid reports that when U.S. President George W. Bush visited Canada in December, he linked co-operation with his missile-defence plan to protection under the U.S. defence umbrella. "What you generally hear is Canada is freeloading," Mr. Mason said. "I think Bush has just put it another way."
> 
> It is not helping that Canada is taking such a long time to decide whether to participate in the U.S. project to defend North America against missile attacks from rogue countries and terrorists, he said.
> 
> "The longer this drags on, the worse it gets. They've already said half-yes. The time to do this would have been right away. It just makes Canada appear indecisive and vulnerable. And it's unnecessary."
> 
> Paul Cellucci, departing U.S. ambassador to Canada, said last week that it is important to have military co-operation through NORAD, which will survive no matter what Canada decides on the U.S. missile-defence plan.



What Ms. Gorham cites is nothing more than the _conventional wisdom_ in Ottawa:   the Government of Canada needs (and _*wants*_) to improve relations with Washington; Washington is preoccupied with security; we can (and *should*) improve (quantitatively and qualitatively) our share of the continental/regional security contribution ... simple, right?

Not simple at all.   A substantial, well connected, politically active minority opposes *any*_ concessions_ to the United States on most matters, especially security ... they have influence out of proportion to their numbers and they likely 'lead' the opinions of a majority of Canadians ... thus, what the Government of Canada both wants and needs to do may spell its short term political doom.   

* http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050131/MISSILE31/TPNational/?query=beth+gorham


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

"A sweeping review of Canada's foreign policy is due soon."
This will be interesting.

Which active minority are you refering to because I know the PC's would love to spend more and do more.


----------



## Kirkhill

I think ROJ is referring to the Lloyd Axworthy wing of the Liberal intelligentsia which is supported by the NDP and a substantial chunk of the "chatterers" in the Media, as opposed to the Conservatives.

You are right on them.  They are saying all the right words.

The Bloc?  Who knows what their real position is beyond being Anti-Ottawa and probably reluctant to support anything that might result in the Government having the capabilities to repeat Trudeau's October 1970 intervention.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I think ROJ is referring to the Lloyd Axworthy wing of the Liberal intelligentsia which is supported by the NDP and a substantial chunk of the "chatterers" in the Media, as opposed to the Conservatives.
> 
> You are right on them.   They are saying all the right words.
> 
> The Bloc?   Who knows what their real position is beyond being Anti-Ottawa and probably reluctant to support anything that might result in the Government having the capabilities to repeat Trudeau's October 1970 intervention.



Right, Kirkhill, but while I think that *many* Conservatives say the right thing ... saying and doing are different.

The problem, for the Conservative Party is that the Canadian people are, broadly and shallowly, supportive of the Canadian Forces ... they want 'good' armed forces which go around the world and do 'good' things ... they are reluctant, however, to pay for it ... they don't want to pay money because they are opposed to new taxes and do not want to redirect wasted money from health care, gun registries, education, EI, fisheries, corporate welfare, etc, etc, and they do not want to send Canadians into harm's way, either.

Those are, broadly, the attitudes of the people in Ontario ... the ones who elect 1/3 of the House of Commons.   Québec, which elects  ¼ of the House is easier: less defence and less foreign involvement.   So, more than half of Canadians, electing more than half of all MPs are ambivalent, at best, regarding defence ... the Conservatives' aim is to form a new government, one which might last more than two terms and one which will be returned more than once in each generation, plus.


----------



## GonzoScribe

Oh yeah, I remember when work dress became unified.  Even my Dad, an old flyboy from the 50's cringed at the sight. 
Canada's military needs assessments are always surprising but, IMHO I don't think there's a taxpayer in our fine country who would object to increased spending if they saw the need.  This has never been effectively displayed in the media, with only the occasional nod to the problems - usually followed by some statement about our heritage being able to make honey out of dog sh*t.  We have always been able to make things work because we have become extremely innovative when it comes to survival.  But I wish ppl would realize relying on this heritage does nothing to protect us from current threats, perceived or real.

The closest the public came to outrage was when we sent our forces to Afghanistan without desert camo.

IMHO again, I think part of the reason we Canadians don't adequately fund our military is because we don't piss anyone off.  At least not up to Paul Martin's election victory.  The cosying up with the US may soon bring the threats home though.

GonzoScribe


----------



## GGboy

I would respectfully disagree.
Look at the public uproar when the DART couldn't deploy to Sri Lanka for 2 weeks after the tsunami because ...
a) we don't have the airlift capability to get them there in a timely fashion
b) our politicians couldn't make up their minds whether or not they should go; or 
c) both of the above.
Or for another eg. when it came out that the BG in Kabul was driving 20-year-old Iltises that broke down constantly. Stories in the press resulted in an accelerated acquisition of the G-Wagons for Roto 1 ... if it hadn't been for the public uproar they'd probably STILL have Iltises over there.
The Canadian public may not like the idea of paying for a decent military, but they generally hold the CF in pretty high esteem. IMHO ...


----------



## Kirkhill

Agreed on all points ROJ.  Saying and doing ARE two very different things.

GGBoy, while the public did get up in arms about the Iltis and the DART those rather play to ROJ's points.  The broad public agrees with "Boy Scout" activities and can understand the need for protected jeeps and transport.  And they do hold the soldiery in high regard, by and large, but they have not come to terms with the primary job of the Forces - applying lethal force in a lethal environment in the furtherance of the State's interests.  Or put another way - killing and dying.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I think in the near future we will just be dying.


----------



## Edward Campbell

CFL said:
			
		

> I think in the near future we will just be dying.



You, CFL, have touched on my great fear.

I have this deep seated dread that our governments' (any of them) desires for cheap 'glory' coupled with an equal desire to spend money on *anything but defence* will see you, serving folks (which includes my son, in the Navy), deployed somewhere where (thanks to parsimony which means that even our friends lock us out of _some_ of the intelligence) we do not have adequate intelligence.  You, whatever ships or units are involved, will get sucked or dragged deeper and deeper into a crisis until you are overwhelmed: stuck, outnumbered, outgunned, unable to be relieved or reinforced or extracted ... then defeated in detail, with heavy casualties.

Then there will be a great hue and cry and then there will be even more public inquiries and much finger pointing and even _mea culpa_ from a politician, here and there ... even some money, probably spent quickly and foolishly and with a cynical eye to political gain, too.

It is, almost, too painful to contemplate but it does keep me awake some nights.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I have quietly said that it will take the destruction of a battle group to get any reaction out of the public and or the gov't.  That reaction being that we withdraw from the world and lick our wounds or the current gov't is deposed and a new gov't gets in and throws money around blindly.  I prey that I am wrong and hope to God it doesn't happen.  Those MGS' are death traps and will get a lot of armoured and infantry killed.  Not to mention adequate tpt to get in or out at any level really.  But I digress.


----------



## Kirkhill

> But I digress.



No you don't.  You are right on point.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Thanks but all the Cpl's in the CF could say what I say and it still won't make a difference.


----------



## Good2Golf

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well Marty, let's put it this way......I am sure that all those Navy and Air Force types out there just love to be called "Soldiers".   I am sure the widow of that Naval Officer who died in the Sub is glad that CBC mentioned the death of a Canadian Soldier in reference to that incident.   I am sure all our Air Crews are glad that they are considered "Soldiers" too.   It really makes me glad to hear a Civie talk about tanks, when there are none within thousands of miles.......it seems that to them anything that is big and painted green is a "tank", even if it has wheels and no turret.   Sure the Army is in the News.......because our media and civilian population can't tell the difference between apples and oranges.
> 
> GW




George, I don't have any particular grief in what Marty stated, in fact it backs up what a fair number of others (ROJ, et al) have been saying about level of understanding of the CF, etc...   People understand based on information that is generally available to them.   The public has heard a lot about the Army...and their "tanks" from the press and, let's be honest, if DGPA and his folks don't send out requests for editorial corrections that Newspaper X or Y should have said "AFV" instead of "tank", then how is the general public to know the differences that stick out like a sore thumb to you and I?

I think the Navy and the Air Force are not nearly as visible as the Army is in the general press.   That's not scientific or statistical, but just my "gut feel" when I look beyond the DND Newsclips on the DIN or read about the CF in the Maple Leaf.   Why is that?   I don't know, but it seems to work out that way.   In fact, even when the Air Force is involved in particular, the credit often goes else where...I have lost count of how many yellow "Coast Guard" search and rescue helicopters have saved lives on the East and West coasts...etc...

As for use of the word "soldier"...well...lower-case "s"...aren't we all?   I understand your point about the term specifically, but would it be upsetting if folks in the Air Force or Navy considered themselves "soldiers first, aviator/sailor second"?   I can tell you I think of myself as more soldier than "air force guy".   I'm an Aviator who lives and breathes CADPAT -- albeit behind a way-too-small CORCAN special, at the moment.   I even mentioned in another post that I would happily stay "Army" rank over "RCAF" rank...but of course this is my opinion/belief and I am "but one PY in CC3."   ;D      Whether it is acceptable, understandable or even excusable, the fact is the press quite often defaults to the term "soldier" when talking about a CF member of any environment.

My last point is about your comment questioning how Gwen (Chris Saunders' wife) would feel about Chris being called a "soldier" versus a "sailor"...I know you were only using it as an example, however I will respond by saying that I think such a thought would be about the farthest thing from her mind as she tries to raise her two little boys without their dad. 

Mein 2 ¢,
Duey


----------



## Steel Badger

"BTW STell Badger there is no RCN and RCAF any longer...haven't been since Unification. I suggest for clarity sake you don't refer to these entities as such."


Ex-Dragoon.......I am aware of unification....and clarity is the last thing we got from it...



That doesnt excuse the enormity of the crime.......Unification i mean

Many folk still refer to Eme as RCEME and the armoured branch as the RCAC

Forgive me father,,, for i grew up in the company of old soldiers / sailors and airmen/women.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Just trying to make sure accurate information is past and not an outdated and unused term.


----------



## Steel Badger

Curiously enough, the Commander of Air Command was very liberal with his use of the term RCAF when speaking with a group of us at Runnymeade Cemetary in England in 94, AND he was referring to the current Air Command

 As well the CDN Forces Chief at the time also used the term RCN as well..............and he was regulary Navy.


I do realize that integration happened, and that the terms were changed then,,,,  but who says gone forever?
So too were the Distinctive uniforms of each element and every thing else....

The wheel turns......

No disrespect intended...only respect for traditions and titles EARNED by Canadians.....


----------



## Andyboy

Just to interject for a second, could someone please tell me how they gauge "public uproar" vs. "media uproar"? Are we assuming the media represents public sentiment? Just wondering, I'm just not sure anymore.

P.S. I don't trust the Liberals ( I don't trust politicians in general but they have been in power for so long the others havn't gotten their fiar chance to lose my respect) or the press so I generally try to read between the lines on stories like this. My take is that it means the CF18 will go away with no replacement (except US a/c) our Hercs will receive minimum sustainment or will be scrapped but we'ill get a c17 or two and our Navy will be scaled back (less ships on OPs) but will receive new support ships.(100% speculation on my part) Like someone already said. Robbing peter to pay paul. 

Leaders lead, not react. For all of you saying that the gov't is just reacting to what the public wants I say BS. Take alisten to what Martin says every time a microphone is in his face: "Canadians want health care."   I wonder what he bases that on, if anything. I'm sick of hte whole sordid mess, you can all keep it.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Rusty Old Joint said:
			
		

> You, whatever ships or units are involved, will get sucked or dragged deeper and deeper into a crisis until you are overwhelmed: stuck, outnumbered, outgunned, unable to be relieved or reinforced or extracted ... then defeated in detail, with heavy casualties.
> 
> Then there will be a great hue and cry and then there will be even more public inquiries and much finger pointing and even _mea culpa_ from a politician, here and there ... even some money, probably spent quickly and foolishly and with a cynical eye to political gain, too.



You just described Dieppe, and it seems to me the lesson should have been learned right then and there, but for the most part it wasn't, even in war time and especially in the early post war years. By the late 60's, the lessons were apparently all but fogotten by the government. Cheers.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Curiously enough, the Commander of Air Command was very liberal with his use of the term RCAF when speaking with a group of us at Runnymeade Cemetary in England in 94, AND he was referring to the current Air Command
> 
> As well the CDN Forces Chief at the time also used the term RCN as well..............and he was regulary Navy.



Maybe but it is still erroneous. I have nothing on my uniform or any of my kit that says RCN and while we wish things never changed Unification happened and using these terms when they no longer apply is kind of redundant and confuses people that don't know any better.


----------

