# Jack Granatstein on how Conservatives are treating the CF



## MarkOttawa (3 Apr 2009)

Plus some extra detail from myself.  A _Torch_ post:

"The Canadian Forces: Stuck in neutral"/CF future strength; major capital projects 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/04/canadian-forces-stuck-in-neutralcf.html



> That's what Jack Granatstein thinks
> http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=1458253&p=1
> (see below for major projects)...



Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## conet (3 Apr 2009)

Definitely not looking good for the Navy and Air Force -- and I'm really worried about the funding cuts that will happen once we're done in Afghanistan.


----------



## Michael OLeary (3 Apr 2009)

It's all well and good for the pundits and think tanks to decry the levels of military spending. If they want to see more more, then perhaps they need to put their energies into identifying and describing the realistic threat to Canada's interests that will require a military response.  Until that is developed and politicians buy in to it, then there's little to convince those who control the purse strings, in the face if many competing requirements, to focus on increased military spending for the long term.


----------



## dapaterson (3 Apr 2009)

As well, DND/CF's financial track record for the past two fiscal years (07-08 and 08-09) has been less than stellar; there are definite capacity issues within DND to be able to execute a larger program.  More money is only good if you can spend it; more recruits are only good if you can train them.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (4 Apr 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> It's all well and good for the pundits and think tanks to decry the levels of military spending. If they want to see more more, then perhaps they need to put their energies into identifying and describing the realistic threat to Canada's interests that will require a military response.  Until that is developed and politicians buy in to it, then there's little to convince those who control the purse strings, in the face if many competing requirements, to focus on increased military spending for the long term.



Have you read "Who's War Is It" by Jack Granatstein?

If not take a look at it.  It was written a few years ago and does exactly what your asking for.  Some may view his forecasts as far fetched, but they are realistic threats that we need to be ready for.  Granatstein has devoted the 2nd half of his career to getting the message out.  The problem is, very few are listening or are interested in what he has to say.

Granatstein is not just some pundit or think tank analyst.  He is Canada's foremost Canadian military historian.  And within the academic world, Granatstein is our best friend!


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 Apr 2009)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> Granatstein is not just some pundit or think tank analyst.  He is Canada's foremost Canadian military historian.  And within the academic world, Granatstein is our best friend!



And unless he's convincing the right people, he's a lone voice in the wilderness.  Having the choir nodding agreeably to your sermon is not the same as converting the barbarians.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (4 Apr 2009)

I agree, what I am trying to say is that, you are not pressing for anything that Granatstein and others have not already tried to do.  Its not for any lack of effort, or misdirected effort that the message has not gotten through.  He is doing the right thing and talking to the right people.  This OPED that you just read is more an attempt to reach out to voters and attempt to inspire a change of thought.  The problem is, this sort of thing serves to embolden guys like us who are already on side.  As for the desired audienc, they just dont want to hear it.  That doesnt make Granatstein's arguments less valid or accurate.  Unfortunately for us, he is a dying breed in Canada's academic circles.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Apr 2009)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> Have you read "Who's War Is It" by Jack Granatstein?
> 
> If not take a look at it.  It was written a few years ago and does exactly what your asking for.  Some may view his forecasts as far fetched, but they are realistic threats that we need to be ready for.  Granatstein has devoted the 2nd half of his career to getting the message out.  The problem is, very few are listening or are interested in what he has to say.
> 
> Granatstein is not just some pundit or think tank analyst.  He is Canada's foremost Canadian military historian.  And within the academic world, Granatstein is our best friend!




Sadly, I guess, historians and polemicists – and sometimes it’s hard to figure out just where Dr. Granatstein fits in that spectrum – do not set public policy; they rarely even “inform” it. Even more sadly, the people who do set public policy (politicians, themselves; political _insiders_ and _activists_ and _operators_; senior civil servants; opinion _makers_ (some journalists/commentators); and opinion _leaders_ (a diverse group of influential (usually rich) people) don’t read much history.

There is NO credible, immediate, comprehensible threat to Canada and, consequently, there is no way that Canadians – whose opinions are “informed” by the opinion makers and opinion leaders, are going to tell* the politicians and in the _insiders_ and so on that they want more defence spending.

The “enemy” is an nebulous cloud of rag tag “movements” that would dearly love to toss a few bombs are way but, even on their best days, have very limited potential for doing real damage.

There are a couple of “nut case” countries out there: North Korea, for example, that pose real, serious dangers to some countries. Israel may have to deal with Iran. The USA may decide to blunder into that quagmire. There is no threat to Canada there, no reason to spend more on defence.  North Korea might frighten Japan and South Korea but China is unlikely to sit idly by while its 3rd and 4th largest markets† are attacked by a band of starving lunatics. There are practical limits to China’s _non-intervention_ policy. Again, no threat to Canada, no need to increase defence spending. Pakistan is a problem – a big one. But, largely, it is India’s problem – and maybe, partially, China’s too. It is a *regional* problem and the regional powers will have to lead the way in solving it.

Africa is a looming problem and I believe it will suck all of the American led West into a long, dirty, bloody war – but very few people are talking about Africa, yet, so the opinion makers and opinion leaders are not, yet, seized with the issue. When they are it will be too late to do things right but they will want Canada, and specifically DND and the CF, to go there and *do something*. But since the opinion makers and leaders will wait until it’s too late before they “inform” the public we Canadians will, once again, wait so long to do things right (increase defence spending, build up the CF) we will end up doing the right thing (combat operations in Africa) in an equivocal, erratic and expensive manner. 

I’m with Michael O’Leary on this one.

-------------------------
* And politicians do listen; even more, they ask. All the major parties poll assiduously and they do ask about foreign policy – albeit not as often as I might wish – and they regularly ask about spending priorities. Defence spending almost always comes at or near the bottom of most lists – and the questions are not weighted to tell politicians what they want to hear (the political _operators_ are too smart for that) – down with symphony orchestras and ballet companies. Canadians may buy a few red T-shirts and a few of them may wave a few forlorn flags when the hearses pass by, on their way to the Toronto coroner’s office, but the overwhelming majority of them do not care about national defence and they do not want their taxes spent on it. 

† See http://www.uschina.org/statistics/tradetable.html Table 8


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (5 Apr 2009)

> I agree, what I am trying to say is that, you are not pressing for anything that Granatstein and others have not already tried to do.  Its not for any lack of effort, or misdirected effort that the message has not gotten through.  He is doing the right thing and talking to the right people.  This OPED that you just read is more an attempt to reach out to voters and attempt to inspire a change of thought.  The problem is, this sort of thing serves to embolden guys like us who are already on side.  As for the desired audience, they just don't want to hear it.  That doesn't make Granatstein's arguments less valid or accurate.  Unfortunately for us, he is a dying breed in Canada's academic circles.



People like Granatstein have been doing that for the past fifty years and its allways fallen upon deaf ears. The Canadian public doesn't hold the same zeal as the Americans do for their military. We're more or less pocket pacific ts who would rather spend money on social programs rather than on new tanks. The only reason we have seen a resurgence in new equipment over the past 8 years is because of Afghanistan. Once the mission is over in 2011, so is the funding for a bigger meaner military. That means instead of buying new equipment we're back to buying crates of guntape and 5-50 cord to try and hold together what we have now... "De-javu". 
Now that the conservatives are facing a 40-60+ billion dollar deficit because of this depression recession the government whom ever it may be will begin to find ways to slash and burn budgets and I think one of the first to go into the fire will be the defence budget, it always is. 
For those tankers who look with boyish glee at those new slightly used LEO II's make sure you keep the miles of them because I feel it may be another 30+ years before you see new ones again. 
Besides If you beleive the politicians chest pounding, I think we're going to need the money to re-equip the Inuit Rangers with newer kayaks, defenceless icebreakers and bigger snowballs to throw at the Russians in the Artic.

It's the Canadian way... Besides we have our big brother to the south to keep watch over our oil and gas for us...


----------



## observor 69 (5 Apr 2009)

Thanks rg45, I think most of us were thinking the same thing but couldn't be bothered to say it !  :nod:


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Apr 2009)

Richard Gwyn in his biography of Macdonald makes a persuasive case that NOBODY has ever considered Canada defensible militarily (at least not since 1864) and therefore a military is always a second tier concern for Canadian politicians.

The Brits explicitly wanted to get rid of the responsibility for Canada because it was too much risk for too little reward.

Canada's threats, then as now, come from internal discord, criminal gangs, activist kids and foreign nations employing means other than military to keep Canada where they need/want her.   An active police force is more in keeping with the direct threats Canada is likely to encounter.

Beyond that a well-founded military capability is a discretionary expenditure to be put at the service of DFAIT to further Canada's "interests"  (pace E.R.).

Fortunately what the world needs now is more Constabularies, and not just  in failed dryland states like Afghanistan.  Historically most problems have surfaced with pirates.

A principle cause of "colonialism" was the perceived need for western governments to make waters safe for trade.   Somali and Omani pirates are/were the reason for the RN to establish a presence from Aden to Kuwait (as well as places like British Somaliland and Dar es Salaam).  Singapore dealt with Dayaks.
The French went into Algeria because the USMC failed to remove the pirates over by Tripoli and prevent them raiding French coastal villages for slaves.  Likewise the RN (and the British Army) got their first public support as standing forces in places like Gibraltar and Tangiers keeping mixed race pirates from raiding Devonshire and selling Englishmen and Women to Arabs.

Unfortunately, the next step after imposing order, in the process establishing a sphere of influence, is competition between Constabularies - resulting in the race for Africa and the building of Dreadnoughts.

Right now we are probably reliving the '30s......the 1830s.  Nobody's strong enough for a fight.  Nobody wants a fight.  So the emphasis is on the continuation of war by other means and a scrabble for resources.

During that period the only game in town for a soldier/sailor was Constabulary duty with the occasional punitive raid thrown in for excitement.  Beyond that there was service with PSCs (or rather the Security Department of Multi-Nationals like the Honourable East India Company, the Hudson's Bay Company - St Boniface was founded by Swiss soldiers paid off from British service and hired by the HBC to protect the Selkirk settlers - and the Anglo-French Sudan Company).  French Foreign Legion grew out of this era - as a Constabulary.


Is it clear by now that I think the future of the CF is as a Constabulary?  

And to be clearer I consider the current activity in Afghanistan, and future service in Darfur, to be Constabulary.  That doesn't mean that the Constabulary doesn't need heavy support.  An Armoured Brigade with Long Range Artillery, Air Defence.......etc.


----------



## firm_believer (9 Apr 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> It's all well and good for the pundits and think tanks to decry the levels of military spending. If they want to see more more, then perhaps they need to put their energies into identifying and describing the realistic threat to Canada's interests that will require a military response.  Until that is developed and politicians buy in to it, then there's little to convince those who control the purse strings, in the face if many competing requirements, to focus on increased military spending for the long term.



Well said. As much as I'd love to see increased spending since I'm just a tad biased,  said spending must be justifiable to the Canadian people, and I suspect much of it as it is just doesn't fly with a percentage of the masses, who wonder why the heck we're even in A-Stan to begin with.


----------



## CrayzdInfantreer (14 Apr 2009)

I find it incredibly depressing that this is the best the Conservatives are willing to offer for the military. 

Come on, look at how things are heating up with Iran, Korea and all of the other questionable regions of the planet. The US military is using up everything it has right now and if it's just them holding down the hordes of heathens then democracy is screwed. Why can't we have some Canadian military pride, am I the only one who thinks like this? Are we a nation of hippies? That was rhetorical, we are a nation of hippies with a very small minority of men whom have grown balls. 

The government needs to take the massive amount of pot we have here and sell it to Russia in exchange for money that can be used for more badass weapons. Then we could sweep in and go "all your base are belong to us" on their @$*es before they muster up the strength to react. 

I would get all the votes if I ever ran for office.. all of them! You know this..


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Apr 2009)

Say goodbye kid.


----------



## Johnny_H (27 Apr 2009)

Long time lurker here, I just wanted to say I enjoyed reading the article and thx for posting it up.
I more or less agree with just about everything Mr.Granatstein has said that I've read and this article is no different. I have that book "Whos War is it?" but have not had a chance to get around to read it.

All The Best,
JWH


----------



## MarkOttawa (25 May 2009)

Start of further _Torch _post:

DND's Reports on Plans and Priorities 2009-2010: Wow. Not.
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/05/dnds-reports-on-plans-and-priorities.html



> Here are the documents.
> http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2009-2010/inst/dnd/dndtb-eng.asp
> Jack Granatstein actually wrote about this over a month and a half ago (see this post:'"The Canadian Forces: Stuck in neutral"/CF future strength; major capital projects'),
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/04/canadian-forces-stuck-in-neutralcf.html
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dapaterson (25 May 2009)

Jack Granatstein is one of DND's stable of tame academics, frequently subsidized with grants and contributions, and a critical supporter of the military.  (By critical supporter, I mean he generally supports the department's objectives, but not always their means to achieve them).

Given his "insider" status, I suspect his earlier broadside was based on a preview of the RPP - helping DND set the stage.

(Unfortunately, my favourite story about him comes from a privledged platform, but was a classic case of "Do what I mean, not what I say...")


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (27 May 2009)

I don't know that the Conservatives are doing anything different than Liberals.  While there is still a large deficiency in capital spending with aircraft and ships at or exceeding their lifespans, spending has opened up a bit, maybe due to the war or maybe not.  Peter MacKay has enough stroke in cabinet to push through programs that are properly sold to him.  The long series of forgetable, throw-away, defence ministers we've had for the last 20 years have had no stroke to accomplish anything.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (1 Jun 2009)

> While there is still a large deficiency in capital spending with aircraft and ships at or exceeding their lifespans, spending has opened up a bit, maybe due to the war or maybe not.



Don't kid yourself, that's exactly why the money has been spent, not because our ships are growing screen doors and sinking. It's because of the war and we should buy the best equipment available for our soldiers when at war, but don't forget the rest of the military.

If we were still on peace keeping missions we'd be in the same position the liberals left us, using slingshots and rocks. 

Every government since before Trudeau and since has ignored the military, we revived the bare minimum to keep operating, but nothing more. We all had high hopes for this governments promises to DND, but it seems that those promises were like any other political posturing "empty"


----------

