# International niche roles for CF



## Armymedic (27 Jun 2005)

After receiving my medal from the CDS last month, I and a couple other Sr NCOs had a chance to chat with the CDS at the post parade reception. After chatting a bit about his mom and family from Nfld with my Newfie colleges (one grew up just down the road and their families know each other), we discussed some of the visions for roles of the CF in the future. 

He seemed to want to press forward on two fronts; 
the first was thru technology, with communications and the near future recce/ISTAR concepts which we lead the way with with our Coyote vehicles and UAV's. 

the second, (and close to our hearts cause it is what we are doing) is exporting the expertise of our Officers and Sr NCOs (and police in the big picture) as trainers for rebuilding armies and assisting in the stability of gov'ts.

Both fit into the triple D concept of the Foreign Affairs Dept of diplomacy, development and defence.

As it does seem warfigting may once again regain prominence vs peacekeeping, we are still not able to project power as a nation by sending cbt formations overseas for the forseeable future (or at least during my career). So in your humble opinion do you think that we as a nation can do to maintain or even enhance our role as a peaceful middle power who enables the stability of other nations or maintain the human rights of the oppressed?


----------



## Vigilant (4 Jul 2005)

Congrats. I take it you were received the GCS? Not too happy with the concept of it, but at least they still give out something.

The number one thing I see we have to do is stay in Afghanistan. With the level of international and UN support, it would be a disaster if the country is destabilized. Stuff like what you were doing (from your profile) is what we should be doing. Handups not handouts, eh?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (6 Jul 2005)

Expertise.  Aren't we short on getting this expertise to our own troops?


----------



## paracowboy (6 Jul 2005)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> So in your humble opinion do you think that we as a nation can do to maintain or even enhance our role as a peaceful middle power who enables the stability of other nations or maintain the human rights of the oppressed?


you honestly think we're a middle power?


----------



## Vigilant (6 Jul 2005)

Well, considering we are members of NATO, in the top 10 in terms of GDP, have a country that most people wouldn't mind living in, our population isn't starving, and our budget is larger than the GDP of most countries, and we're not doing so badly.


----------



## pbi (6 Jul 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> you honestly think we're a middle power?



I join in paracowboy's question. I think that we certainly _were_ once a middle power, by most people's definition, but I wonder about now. Vigilant: can you name some other "middle powers" so we can see what league you've got us in? 

To say: 



> Well, considering we are members of NATO, in the top 10 in terms of GDP, have a country that most people wouldn't mind living in, our population isn't starving, and our budget is larger than the GDP of most countries, and we're not doing so badly.



...IMHO really just identifies a great place to live, not a "middle power". "Power" IMHO suggests the ability to project, or influence or effect some change to our own advantage. Do we do that?

Cheers


----------



## Vigilant (6 Jul 2005)

It all depends on your definition, whether by military power alone, economic power, or whatever. It also depends on what you would require.

If you think an aircraft carrier makes you a middle power, then you would consider Spain and Thailand as middle powers. If it is simply the capability to employ military force then (mostly due to NATO and our allies) then I would consider us a middle power.

Of course, this takes into account the 100 or so small countries that are poor militarily and economically.


----------



## pbi (6 Jul 2005)

I will let paracowboy go first.

Cheers.


----------



## paracowboy (6 Jul 2005)

I see "power" as used here, to mean influence. World influence. We have none, militarily, economically, or any other "ly". Nobody in the UN gives a rat's hiney about what Canada thinks on pretty much any topic. When was the last time ANY nation listened to what our fearful leaders had to say? Our traditional allies have come to realize that we are a back-biting, cowardly lot, our foes ignore us with impunity, and France and Germany know that we will only go so far backing them against our allies, before backing down in order to protect our economic interests. 
Canada is a great place to live, unless you want accountable government with fair representation, but we are a far cry from a middle power.


----------



## Vigilant (6 Jul 2005)

I disagree. Canada is very well respected internationally.

Do you think Canada is less of a power than Argentina or Thailand? What about Singapore, or Brazil? Economically we are at least a middle power.

Militarily we have a small but capable force. Our economy give us the ability to increase it if necessary, and more importantly our reputation internationally is we don't get involved in a fight unless it is necessary.

Sure we complain a lot, but when you consider 90% of the world's armies you see we're not that bad.

Now if you mean coercive influence through military force, then I would agree with you. But then our peacenik population won't support that.


----------



## 2 Cdo (6 Jul 2005)

Sorry Vigilant but Canada is pretty much ignored these days by the big boys! I'll give you the economic middle power but thats about it. In terms of military power, like it or not, we are rapidly closing in on third world levels. We have some decent training for the most part but we are SORELY lacking the hardware to effectively do our job. We don't have the means to transport large bodies of troops(if we had them) or their equipment(if we had enough)! Our navy(sorry guys) is a shadow of what it used to be, subs anyone?  No cruisers, destroyers or aircraft carriers which we USED to own! Our CF-18's(you air force guys thought I would forget about you) are pretty much near the end of their lives. They need MASSIVE amounts of money to update and upkeep them!

Sorry Vigilant to be the bearer of bad news but that is the state we find ourselves in. Years and years of neglect by our government and a healthy dose of indifference from the population have finally come home to roost.  As for Canada being able to sway world opinion on anything, I just shake my head! :-[


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (6 Jul 2005)

Some supporting fire:

Moreover, our diplomatic presence is a shadow of its former self.  I was involved in negotiating a CF presence in a country overseas.  We'd promised to build an embassy ten years before and never followed through; things were very awkward as a result.  We were HATED and there were roadblocks at every turn.  They never forgot our snub and held it against us in a huge way.  The result?  No formal agreement, and tons of resulting problems.  It is surprising how many countries we don't have embassies in...

No embassy = no influence.

I worked alongside 17 different countries in a foreign unit on my last tour.  When those countries thought of us, we were either "little Americans" or the country with all the trees.  Aside from that, some were surprised we even had an army and certainly did not see us as a "force for good" in the world, as we like to make ourselves out to be.  We Canadians like to believe that we're a shining beacon to the rest of the world and then are shocked to find that they don't think of us at all...


----------



## Gunner (6 Jul 2005)

> Moreover, our diplomatic presence is a shadow of its former self.  I was involved in negotiating a CF presence in a country overseas.  We'd promised to build an embassy ten years before and never followed through; things were very awkward as a result.  We were HATED and there were roadblocks at every turn.  They never forgot our snub and held it against us in a huge way.  The result?  No formal agreement, and tons of resulting problems.  It is surprising how many countries we don't have embassies in...



Brazil hates us as well due to antics by Trudeau in the 70s.


----------



## Gunner (6 Jul 2005)

I have heard of many similar incidents by our politicians in Croatia, Bosnia and even in Sierra Leone when I was deployed there.  Our "egalitarian" view is often seen as a huge insult by locals who place a lot of emphasis on ceremony and dignity.

-----------------------------------

WHY BRAZIL DESPISES US

With as many as 25,000 protesters expected to descend on Quebec City for next week's Summit of the Americas, the government has marshalled the largest security operation yet undertaken in Canada. But concerns over security are threatening to eclipse what the summit is about. In an exclusive four-part series, including Part III today, the National Post examines some of the key issues government leaders will address, such as the growth of democracy in Latin America, economic integration and Canada's troubled relations with Brazil. 

When Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister, welcomes the 33 leaders scheduled to arrive in Quebec City for the Summit of the Americas next week, he is not likely to receive a friendly reception from Fernando Henrique Cardoso, the Brazilian President whose government has not recovered from Canada's recent boycott of Brazilian beef. 

Although the ban was eventually lifted, relations between Canada and Brazil have soured. They were not helped by the tension that existed long before the beef boycott. 

The problems began on Jan. 15, 1981 -- the day Pierre Trudeau arrived in the country's capital wearing a business suit and a pair of sneakers. 

Mr. Trudeau was the first Canadian prime minister to visit the country, and his Brazilian trip was part of a larger tour of developing countries to promote what he called the North-South dialogue, an initiative to forge closer relations between Canada and its impoverished counterparts in the Southern Hemisphere. 

The day of his arrival in Brasilia, an editorial in the Estado de Sao Paulo newspaper hailed "the stability of Canadian democratic institutions and [Canada's] political development ..." The newspaper went on to praise Mr. Trudeau and hope his visit would send an important message to Brazil's military leaders. 

But things quickly changed as soon as Mr. Trudeau got off the plane. Dressed in a sombre grey business suit and wearing canvas sneakers, Mr. Trudeau made his way down the tarmac on that sweltering summer day to greet the Brazilian government delegation. The Brazilian generals, resplendent in their ceremonial uniforms for the occasion, could barely contain their astonishment. At that moment, Brazilians stopped focusing on democracy and development, and the issue became shoes; most specifically, what the Brazilian press called Mr. Trudeau's rather unfortunate choice of footwear. 

For days after the prime minister's arrival, Brazilian newscasts were filled with close-up shots of his sneakers and detailed analyses of his wardrobe. Mr. Trudeau, known for his rather zany antics in Canada, quickly found his mercurial behaviour did not go over very well in Brazilian diplomatic circles. He became the butt of several jokes. One of the most popular became, "What does Mr. Trudeau wear at official receptions -- a jogging suit?" 

Underlying the obsession with Mr. Trudeau's shoes was a sensitive nationalistic nerve that never recovered from what many Brazilians still consider a major national affront. "The prime minister of Canada felt he could show up in Brazil wearing sneakers because he saw Brazil as an inferior Third World backwater" went the argument that circulated among Brazil's political elite at the time. 

"Brazilians never got over that," said one Canadian observer who was in Brazil at the time of Mr. Trudeau's visit. "Brazilians like to think of themselves as very proper, and very refined. They considered what Trudeau did to be an imperialist snub." 

 Brazilians are still sensitive and nationalistic when it comes to Canada, a country that was instrumental in Brazil's development, but is held up to scorn and ridicule by many Brazilians. At best, Canada is regarded as a satellite of the United States in Brazil; at worst, it is regarded as a major rival to Brazil's ambitions on the international trade circuit. Following the United States, the second power in the region should not be Canada, many Brazilians argue, but Brazil, Latin America's largest economy and one of the region's largest countries, with a population of more than 170 million people. 

In an interesting reversal of traditional First World-Third World trading patterns, Canada exports mainly raw materials to Brazil, such as wheat and potash, while Brazil exports mainly manufactured goods to Canada, such as car parts, processed orange juice and instant coffee. 

In cultural circles in Brazil, Canada is barely regarded. Brazilian composer Antonio Carlos Jobim once remarked about Canada, "Aqui nada ha." The phrase is a pun on the word "Canada" in Portuguese, which translates as, "in Canada, there is nothing." 

Although political relations between the two countries had been cordial for most of the 20th century, they soured during Mr. Trudeau's visit, took a turn for the worse when two Canadians kidnapped a Brazilian executive in 1989, and almost completely fell apart in February, when Canada stopped importing tins of Brazilian beef over concerns Brazil did not have the proper procedures in place to prevent the spread of mad cow disease. 

Although Canada lifted the ban three weeks after it was imposed, Brazilians are upset over what they consider yet another national affront. 

In protest, two of the country's most important writers, Lygia Fagundes Telles and Nelida Pinon, cancelled their visits to the Summit of the Americas. 

The writers had been invited as part of the Summit's cultural component to be held in Montreal and Quebec City later this month. In a recent letter to President Cardoso, they said they would not condone Canada's anti-Brazilian attitude by participating in an international meeting to be held on Canadian soil, and that Canada, by banning Brazilian beef exports, was being contemptuous of a developing economy. 

Mr. Cardoso threatened to follow suit if the Canadian government did not lift the beef ban, which many in Brazil saw as a form of harassment linked to a multi-million-dollar trade dispute involving subsidies for airplane manufacturers in both countries. Since Brazil's Embraer was privatized in 1994, it has been involved in several disputes with Canada's Bombardier on the international trade circuit. 

"We almost experienced a complete diplomatic breakdown over this issue," said James Mohr-Bell, executive director of the Brazil-Canada Chamber of Commerce in Sao Paulo. "Brazilians saw the beef ban as a continuation of the dispute involving Embraer and Bombardier. Most Brazilians saw it as an imperialistic company fighting against a Brazilian company. That's why the protests against Canada were so angry." 

The situation is surprising considering Canadians helped turn Brazil into the economic powerhouse it is today. In the early part of the 20th century, a Toronto-based holding company called the Brazilian Traction, Light and Power Company Ltd. literally electrified Brazil's two largest cities, Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo, providing electricity, tramlines and telephones. 

The company became so influential in Brazil, Brazilians began to refer to it as The Light, a beacon of modernity. The name stuck even after the Canadians began to pull out of the country in the late 1960s. 

"In a country then lacking even meagre supplies of coal or oil, electricity from The Light and the public utility services that it made possible helped to prepare the urban infrastructure of Rio and Sao Paulo for the spectacular growth they were to experience in the twentieth century," Canadian historian Duncan McDowall wrote in his book The Light: Brazilian Traction, Light and Power Company Limited. 

For more than 80 years, The Light, or the "Canadian octopus," as Brazilians called it, was the Brazilian version of Ontario Hydro, the Toronto Transit Commission and Bell Canada all rolled into one company. 

 Brazilian press magnate Assis Chateaubriand wrote in a 1962 editorial that Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo were "but miserable colonial towns, infested with yellow fever and malaria, when the Canadians came in. They brought not only a business, but a mission." The Light was also a gold mine for the company's owners, a group of Canadian and Euro- pean investors headquartered in Toronto. 

After the 1930 revolution in Brazil, foreign companies became subject to so many restrictive government regulations, the Canadian company found it difficult to compete. For example, by 1960, the company was forced to increase employees' wages by 38% but could not increase its rates to compensate for the pay raise. 

After the military coup in 1964, the Brazilian government began to nationalize foreign industry and struck a deal with the Canadian company, later known as Brascan, to take over the company's utilities. At the time, the Canadian company was seen as an imperialistic presence that supplied essential services to Brazilians but was responsible to its shareholders in a place called Toronto. 

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, many Latin American intellectuals believed the First World's economic success was based primarily on the economic subjugation of such Third World countries as Brazil. In 1971, Mr. Cardoso, then a sociologist, wrote Dependency and Development, which launched the Dependency School Economists and was considered one of the most important texts on the manipulation of Latin American economies by the First World. 

"The Light was never as bad as some of the American companies that dominated places like Central America in the last century, but many Brazilians did see it as a tool of imperialism," said a Rio de Janeiro-based writer who did not want to be identified. "Canada was always seen as 'the nice' imperialist, but an imperialist nonetheless." 

If Canada was an agreeable imperialist force for most of the 20th century, then it radically became a nasty one in 1989, when Christine Lamont and David Spencer, two earnest Canadians, participated in Brazil's biggest kidnapping. The two Canadians, who were convicted for their roles in the kidnapping of Sao Paulo-based supermarket magnate Abilio Diniz in 1990, insisted they were innocent and being held as political prisoners in Brazil. 

Their plea was backed by a lobbying effort on the part of Ms. Lamont's parents in Langley, B.C., who hired a high-profile Ottawa lobbyist and managed to turn the plight of Ms. Lamont and Mr. Spencer into the biggest bilateral issue between Canada and Brazil for most of the 1990s. 

Although the evidence presented by Sao Paulo police against Ms. Lamont, Mr. Spencer and eight other Latin American terrorists was overwhelming, Canadian leaders who visited Brazil during the time the two were in jail pleaded with Brazilian authorities for their release or transfer to Canada. 

Many Brazilians thought the whole matter rather absurd, especially because they had seen footage of Ms. Lamont and Mr. Spencer emerge from the safe-house in Sao Paulo where Mr. Diniz was held for several days in December, 1989. 

The arrest of Ms. Lamont, Mr. Spencer and some of their Latin American accomplices was broadcast live on Brazilian television on the same day Brazilians went to the polls to vote in their first direct election in nearly three decades. 

Brazilian security forces also found a sizeable arms cache in the house where Mr. Diniz was held in an underground cell. The kidnappers had demanded a ransom of US$30-million, which they later revealed was earmarked to buy weapons for rebels in El Salvador. 

For years afterward, Brazilian diplomats and business people criticized Canadians for harbouring outdated views of Brazil as a tinpot dictatorship where the two Canadians were denied basic justice. 

In the Canadian press, Ms. Lamont and Mr. Spencer were portrayed as unwitting dupes to the kidnapping, who were being housed in substandard, even dangerous jail cells without access to due process. The reverse was true. Because of the Canadian lobbying effort, Ms. Lamont and Mr. Spencer were granted preferential treatment by Canadian diplomats and received private medical and dental care. 

"With the Lamont/Spencer case, Canada has shown itself to be the Third World country, not Brazil," said Veja Magazine, Brazil's most influential weekly, in 1995. "Now we know that the attitude of Canadians to the Lamont/Spencer affair was simply based on racism." 

Many Canadians living in Brazil at the time agreed with the Veja assessment. Although Ms. Lamont and Mr. Spencer were returned to Canada under a prisoner-exchange treaty a few years ago, their case still leads to heated discussions in Brazil. 

"The problem with our relations with Brazil has been that Canadians almost unconsciously start out thinking that they have a lot to teach these people called Brazilians," said a former Canadian diplomat to Brazil, who did not want to be identified. "There has been a certain lack of respect in Canada's relations with Brazil, and I think it goes back to Trudeau getting off the plane in tennis shoes." (National Post/Canada, 11/04/01)


----------



## Britney Spears (6 Jul 2005)

I'm not disputing your point, but this article was absolutely astonishing. Sneakers? At a formal meeting of heads of state? I can see how it would be hard to have any meaningful dialogue with a nation that apparently has a 10 yr old for a PM.  :.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (6 Jul 2005)

Thank you Gunner for the interesting post.


----------



## Infanteer (6 Jul 2005)

Ahh...my latent Canadian illusions of moral superiority are rapidly deflating!!!


----------



## Gunner (6 Jul 2005)

Its from the national post so you have to take it with a grain of salt but where there is smoke, there is fire.


----------



## pbi (6 Jul 2005)

Vigilant said:
			
		

> It all depends on your definition, whether by military power alone, economic power, or whatever. It also depends on what you would require.
> 
> If you think an aircraft carrier makes you a middle power, then you would consider Spain and Thailand as middle powers. If it is simply the capability to employ military force then (mostly due to NATO and our allies) then I would consider us a middle power.
> 
> Of course, this takes into account the 100 or so small countries that are poor militarily and economically.



You're right: it depends exactly upon your definition, so I was wondering what your definition for "middle power" would be. I am not sure what you mean by "..._what you would require_...". Require to do what ?

As for application of military force, I assume you mean outside our own country, in furtherance of our own or allied interests? If so, we would have serious difficulty measuring up to that criteria. As 2Cdo pointed out, our ability to project, protect, sustain and recover any force is very weak. This is one of the goals Gen Hillier has set under CF Transformation: to build the ability to project a modest but capable force through a truly joint effort. We have a Navy with almost zero ability to transport, sustain or recover land or significant air elements, and an Air Force whose air transport capability is marginal at best. Neither of these comments is intended as a slight on our blue comrades: they're just sad facts.

I believe that economically, we are a power, and we do have even greater potential. However, on the political and military levels we have a ton of work to do. In those senses we are IMHO minor players.

Cheers.

I am not sure that possessing any single item of military hardware(other than perhaps a nuclear weapon that works and can be delivered) makes one a "middle power".


----------



## Vigilant (6 Jul 2005)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> So in your humble opinion do you think that we as a nation can do to maintain or even enhance our role as a peaceful middle power who enables the stability of other nations or maintain the human rights of the oppressed?



In this case I see it as being more economic power than military power, since I think most democracies are wary of using military force to maintain the human rights of the oppresed. Heck, it took the US to lead the charge in Afghanistan despite the decade of human rights abuses there. Yes, I know that wasn't why they went, but it was the reason a lot of countries supported it.




			
				pbi said:
			
		

> You're right: it depends exactly upon your definition, so I was wondering what your definition for "middle power" would be. I am not sure what you mean by "..._what you would require_...". Require to do what ?



I would like some examples of middle powers from the others (like paracowboy). But I see the US as a superpower, Russia, Britain, France as below that, and countries like Brazil and Singapore as regional powers. Canada would be comparable perhaps with Italy, or perhaps South Korea.

And I'm still wondering whether having an aircraft carrier makes you a middle power since it provides the power projection capabilities. I would say yes, others may disagree.


----------



## KevinB (7 Jul 2005)

Italy can project WAY more power than we can - - for that matter mnay African nations have Parachute REGIMENTS - and a (albiet incompetant) airforce that they could likely invade us...

 I would think it easier to list countries we could be rated above for capabilties.  I'm sure there a landlocked cash starved nation somewhere that does not have an airforce...


----------



## paracowboy (7 Jul 2005)

Vig,
I agree with your ranking (or rather, your grouping > insert marksmanship pun here <), but not your terms. I would consider Great Britain, Russia, China, India, Brazil as Middle Powers. A superpower has the ability to influence any-dang-body it wants to. A middle power has some pull. I would classify a Middle Power and a Regional Power much the same. 3 or more Regional Powers equal one Superpower. (With 6, you get eggroll.)
And yes, Canada would be about on par with Italy. And nobody cares what Italy thinks about anything. When was the last time any country on Earth said "Whoa! Italy says to knock it off, or they're gonna get nasty."? If I recall correctly, about 1939, maybe as late as 1942.


----------



## devil39 (7 Jul 2005)

And once we get rid of point air defence, some of those incompetent African airforces might be able to defeat us on the ground in Africa.


----------



## Britney Spears (7 Jul 2005)

Aircraft Carriers are overrated for third world countries  I think. Building the damn thing would be the easy part. The time and expense to buld and train a credible escort/ASW fleet, carrier air wing(landing on an AC at night is harder than most people think, I hear), train crews, develop TTPs, means that only three or four navies in the world (USN, RN, Russian and French Navy kinda ) actually have aircraft carriers that are more than just presidential yachts. The Chinese at this point can't even build a good size DDG, let alone a carrier, and  I don't think anyone's nervously scanning the horizon for that Indian or Thai Carrier strike group. 

The Americans are where they are now because they've been doing it for 50+ years, No one's going to come anywhere close for the next 20 years at least.


----------



## Vigilant (7 Jul 2005)

Really good discussion here.

Nothing beats a carrier for power projection. But defending it is a pain, and refuleing and resupply a real mess.

However, I don't think anybody really gives a crap what Brazil thinks outside of South America.

Our GDP, our alliances, and our professional army give us an edge over almost any African army, except for maybe Egypt and South Africa.

And I'd like to see any African country try to project power and invade Canada. Think about it. 

"What is this white thing growing on the ground?"
"I believe they call it snow."


----------



## paracowboy (7 Jul 2005)

I'd like to see any nation try to invade Canada. The US would make terribly short work of them. Then we'd say thank you by pillorying them in our media.
There is only one country on the globe that could invade us, and they don't need to. Yet. (And don't anyone take this post as an opportunity to go on some stupid anti-US rant).


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jul 2005)

_Niche roles_ are great favourites amongst many senior people here in Ottawa because they promise to _*do (even) more with (even) less[/u]*.

They (niche roles) gained additional favour in PMO after Jennifer Welsh's (Oxford) book and (brief) tenure as 'editor' of the International Policy Statement.  In my, personal, opinion Welsh didn't really understand what she was implying when she used Norway as a model for niche roles â â€œ she's a first rate scholar, she just overreached a bit there.

One may suggest that we started down the niche road in about 1917 when the Canadian Corps became, de facto the shock troops of the BEF.

From 1918 onwards there have been tensions between a military establishment which craves a general purpose combat mandate â â€œ with the consequential organizations and manning, and their political-bureaucratic masters who are, constantly, enamoured with smaller, lighter, cheaper and safer niche roles â â€œ conscription, like hanging, does focus the mind.

Pearsonian peacekeeping became the Trudeau government's favourite (only) niche role: cheap, safe and easily publicized.  The effect (and the intention) of the '69 policies was to render Canadian operational forces irrelevant in combat terms.  (From my vantage point in HQ AFCENT over 25 years ago the Canadians in Lahr had no military utility.  We did not even bother to 'show the flag' on the situation/briefing maps/reports unless a very senior Canadian was visiting.  In fairness, HQ AAFCE and 4ATAF did count the Canadian aircraft.)  It was Mulroney, in 1990 (but not before) who began the turnaround when he finally understood â â€œ despite the advice of many of his most senior officials â â€œ that rundown and rust-out and all such terms really did have meaning.  Mulroney wanted to send ground combat forces to Kuwait/Iraq.  I believe he actually promised some to President Bush Sr.  I, personally, participated in doing the appreciation of the situation which persuaded the DM and the PCO that 4CMBG was not, in any way, combat capable and â â€œ even with virtually all the army forces in Canada added â â€œ could not be made combat capable and moved to the Middle East and sustained in battle in anything under many, many months.  It is my belief  that many (perhaps most) senior officials, including many inside DND, learned the true state of our military affairs only in 1990.  It is my opinion, also, that only a tiny handful of the commentariat ever did grasp the problem and that few failed to inform the Canadian people â â€œ perhaps intentionally. So much for niche roles!

I remain adamantly opposed to the idea of niche roles for Canada â â€œ so long as we remain amongst the top 10% of the world's nations â â€œ as I expect we shall for the next half century.  We are, in 2005, a hugely unbalanced power â â€œ we are a major economic player (our  ½ of 1% of the world's population produces nearly 2% of the global economic activity* â â€œ more if we don't use PPP measures), with a puny (no better word) global presence.  We are valued as a good example of prudent national housekeeping (thanks to Mulroney's GST) but we have no 'voice' because we have no useful diplomatic and military (= political) power.

I am especially opposed to the idea of sending experts (usually Sr NCOs) out as trainers until we have reformed our own domestic training systems and produced enough senior people to staff our units and schools.  When we have solved our own problems, as I perceive them from deep in retirement, we can consider sending our most valuable resource elsewhere.

----------

* The USA, China, Japan and India, together, account for over 49% of the global economic activity â â€œ no one else accounts for as much as 4.5%.  On that basis, 2% matters.     
_


----------



## MdB (7 Jul 2005)

Very nice and informative post Mr. Campbell.

That's said, let's keep in mind that the government of Canada is spending 40 G$ on debt reduction (of about 475 or 500 G$). Even with the additionnal 12.8 G$ for DND, Canada is still under the NATO military spending average. It would be more like 25 G$ annually to be on par with other members. Our contribution to defence in 2004 was 1.2% of the GDP whereas the average was 1.9% for the same year. Given Canada underfunded DND for the past 20 years, it would require more than the average to be back on track and with the influence the governement would like to have. It would be then more like 30-35 or even 40 G$. All that keeping in mind we're overdue for building new ships, buying new airplanes (be it transport or fighter-bomber).

Then, Canada could aspire to be a middle-power. Not before spending at least the average percentage of NATO members.

Here's the detail: http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2005/p050609.pdf


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jul 2005)

Although there are lots of good points here, the basic premise is flawed: Canada's military should exist for the defense of Canada and to secure Canada's national interests. Arguing about influencing people around the world is a bit silly if we can't even secure our own coastlines.

Let's get squared away with the primary premise (Defense of Canada), and decide what Canadian "National Interests" exist outside the borders that we want/need to apply military force to; then the size and shape of the military can be derived. If allies would like to take advantage of some of the capabilities we have developed to secure Canadian soil and our National Interest, then those will be the "niche" capacities.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Jul 2005)

agreed


----------



## MdB (7 Jul 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Although there are lots of good points here, the basic premise is flawed: Canada's military should exist for the defense of Canada and to secure Canada's national interests. Arguing about influencing people around the world is a bit silly if we can't even secure our own coastlines.
> 
> Let's get squared away with the primary premise (Defense of Canada), and decide what Canadian "National Interests" exist outside the borders that we want/need to apply military force to; then the size and shape of the military can be derived. If allies would like to take advantage of some of the capabilities we have developed to secure Canadian soil and our National Interest, then those will be the "niche" capacities.



They have difficulty _clearly_ stating that in the IPS, as to have some kind of vision...

Canada's economy (cuz that's what is interesting the governement) is based on exportation (85% of them heading South) and Canada's national interest is that the world economy continue to give us the opportunity to export more. To export more, world stability is essential. So, basically, the national interest of Canada is to ensure that everyone gets along!! Canada would like to be the friend of everybody... in order to export more!!


----------



## Armymedic (8 Jul 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Although there are lots of good points here, the basic premise is flawed: Canada's military should exist for the defense of Canada and to secure Canada's national interests. Arguing about influencing people around the world is a bit silly if we can't even secure our own coastlines.
> 
> Let's get squared away with the primary premise (Defense of Canada), and decide what Canadian "National Interests" exist outside the borders that we want/need to apply military force to; then the size and shape of the military can be derived. If allies would like to take advantage of some of the capabilities we have developed to secure Canadian soil and our National Interest, then those will be the "niche" capacities.



Great point, and once we are squared away on defence of Canada we should be able to fit into international coalitions based on our strengths. We as a country, have lacked vision and leadership, both politically and militarily for a while. Lets not make the same mistakes and be forced into areas we are not familiar with like we were in the mid 90's.



> I am especially opposed to the idea of sending experts (usually Sr NCOs) out as trainers until we have reformed our own domestic training systems and produced enough senior people to staff our units and schools.  When we have solved our own problems, as I perceive them from deep in retirement, we can consider sending our most valuable resource elsewhere.


I have to agree with this statement, even though this would be one of the ideal roles for infantry NCOs to do in our "new" international role.


----------

