# why would we need a large military?



## Pte. Bloggins (21 Apr 2004)

I apologize if this has been discussed ad nauseaum before, I did a brief search but could not find quite what I was looking for. 

Bascially, figuratively speaking (if, by some miracle, this ever happenned) what would be the benefits of having a large, well-equipped military force in Canada? (Besides the obvious of improved national security, national pride etc.) 

I‘m writing an essay for school, and I need a few points to start with.
Thanks.


----------



## Spr.Earl (21 Apr 2004)

Show the Flag more.
Help lesser fortunate nations develop a well trained and respected Force.
I could go on.


----------



## stukirkpatrick (21 Apr 2004)

larger and better equipped means better aid for natural disasters, both foreign (earthquakes etc..) and domestic (mild snowfall in Toronto)


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (21 Apr 2004)

Spr Earl please do, I have a general idea about what I‘m going to write about but need some specific points to fill up the pages


----------



## stukirkpatrick (21 Apr 2004)

heres another, larger forces means soldiers are not so overworked (ie multiple tours in short span - which the CF apparently doesn‘t do anymore)

Also means we can send more people on peacekeeping operations, for longer periods of time.


----------



## condor888000 (21 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Kirkpatrick:
> [qb] larger and better equipped means better aid for natural disasters, both foreign (earthquakes etc..) and domestic (mild snowfall in Toronto) [/qb]


Don‘t you mean any snowfall in Toronto?


----------



## AlphaCharlie (21 Apr 2004)

Invading 3rd world countries and eating ALL THEIR COOKIES. muhahahaha


----------



## condor888000 (21 Apr 2004)

I read somewhere that we are losing influence on the world stage. A larger military may help prevent that.


----------



## scm77 (21 Apr 2004)

To rein **** down on our enemys.  And to clear the snow in Toronto quicker.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Apr 2004)

Not only tours but the extensive over loaded supplying for courses.  You can spend the equivelent of a tour in another part of Canada teaching or being a joe boy.  Ok for single guys but when guys go away, come back for a couple of weeks, go away again its hard on families.


----------



## Spr.Earl (21 Apr 2004)

Each Province would have at least one major base with one Air Base for Air Support,Rotary and fixed wing for Transport plus Jump Capability.

One Brigade and one Wing for each Major Province except P.E.I.and Sask,Spud Island can be supported from either N.B or N.S.,Sask can be supported from either Alb. or Man.

Move the School of Engineering back to the Wack because of climate,If we need cold weather it‘s not far away.

The money spent just gets returned back to the government indirectly via the Troops pay cheques,civie jobs that are created to support a Base,civie suppliers and local Development by the business‘s that move in to support the Base‘s and the local Communities.

Forget Sub.‘s,we rebuild our surface fleet first.

Yeh I know I‘m dreaming and how would we pay for it?Just a view if we had the tax base pay for it.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Apr 2004)

You would staff these with what, Fig. 11‘s.


----------



## stukirkpatrick (21 Apr 2004)

Maybe some figure 12s too 

   They can run all of the desk bureaucracy


----------



## Spr.Earl (21 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by CFL:
> [qb] You would staff these with what, Fig. 11‘s. [/qb]


Like I said if we had the Tax base and I also forgot to mention improve conditions and benifits in the C.F. to increase our man power.Yes it would take time but I think we could do it.The main reason many don‘t join is because of the negitive press about tours,P.M.Q.‘s etc.
Start with conditions first.As your first post pointed out.Satrt with those and then go from there.


----------



## kaspacanada (22 Apr 2004)

We have an army?    
That could make our country aggressive...oops.

Need a larger army?  I don‘t think we do.  I think we need to take better care of the one we do have...as well as the other two branches.  Make sure it‘s staffed to its capacity, funded properly, equipped properly, and the government should task it out accordingly to its capabilities.  Simply having a bigger army isn‘t going to bring the influence by itself, it is what we do with what we have and how effective we are that makes the largest difference.  I would use the analogy that ‘its not how big it is it‘s how you use it‘ but in that case, size does matter.

Ways in which I see the CF playing a strong role in foreign policy

1. Defending international economic interests by assisting coalitions in stabilizing different areas of the world for expansion and inclusion in the world economy.  (Additional benefits according to the liberal peace thesis)

2. Reassure our southern neighbour that we are doing our part and are not a weak link in North American Security.

3. Promoting Canadian values abroad.  Eg. Tolerance, compromise, democracy, rule of law.  CF has been often deployed on peacekeeping and stabilization missions which show our willingness to put our ‘muscle behind our mouths‘.  The Human Security Agenda pressed primarily by former minister of foreign affairs lloyd Axworthy is a good example of the diplomatic side to this.  See also the ‘responsibility to protect‘ document at 
the foreign affairs website.  (Primarily UN peacekeeping, peacemaking] as well as particular contributions to world security such as our present deployment in Afghanistan - keep up the good work !)

As a side note:

The human security agenda can also be seen as a way of diverting attention from Canada‘s declining military role which has been in the past the idea of ‘middlepowerhood‘.  This is well documented and off hand, I can think of Jack Granatstein and Joseph Jockel that particularly see it this way.  There is a good series of books called "Canada Among NAtions" that comes out every year, check out several volumes of that.  John Manley called Canada‘s behaviour as eating at the dinner "table and then, when the bill comes, [going] to the washroom".  Canada‘s ability to participate has been seriously questioned for years, and I don‘t think I need to go into anything on that because it is well known here, and it is very well documented.

Domestically, 

I we don‘t need a larger land force although the Navy and Airforce may need some increases in authorized strength.

1.  Sovereignty Missions.  As I see it particularly emphasizing sovereignty missions in the north.  With thinning ice up there, the waterways are opening up and we should be (if we want to keep it) in a position to be able to control it.  That includes having Naval vessels with re-inforced hulls to deal with the ice.  

But the land force is useful for many purposes at home as we have seen.  As are the Airforce and the Navy.

2. Defence is one of the largest employers in Canada from tertiary employment to direct employment.  This benefits communities both directly and indirectly across Canada, as well as boosting economies in areas that sometimes have little else to sustain them.

3. Ice Storms, Forest Fires, mild snowfall in toronto, floods, emergency response for terrorist attacks.  Any other emergencies that might come to pass.  (More cynically: dealing with separatists and militant natives being among the more controversial roles that our military has played at times)

4. Our Airforce, Navy, the RCMP and the Coast Gaurd cooperate with eachother on tracking illegal immigration (ships off the west coast anyone?) We also cooperate with agencies in the US through NORAD by assisting in monitoring airspace security, and also drug smuggling across the borders and such.  However, due to funding issues, we are increasingly hardpressed to play these roles.  (well documented)

5. Traditional defence role for Canada.  As unnecessary as it might seem, it is necessary. 

If you want any more, and I have LOTS...PM me or e mail me.

Good luck


----------



## Infanteer (22 Apr 2004)

Reading out your course notes again, Kaspa?


----------



## kaspacanada (22 Apr 2004)

lol

I haven‘t been on a reg force course yet..lol.
But I do a lot of research on Cdn Defence relations.    

FYI: I actually used one section of a paper I wrote last year to help with this though.


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Apr 2004)

We don‘t need a bigger army, we need more money for maintanance of equipment, aquisition of transportation (so we‘re not always bumming rides), and we need to better utilize the soldiers that we DO have.  I know reservists who have been waiting 6 years for a tour and still haven‘t gotten a chance to go.  The manpower is there, the equipment and the funding is what we‘re lacking.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Apr 2004)

I beg to differ that the manpower is there.


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Apr 2004)

I know at least 10 guys (myself included) in my regiment alone who are right now begging to get on a tour.  From previous experience, I know that when tour slots do eventualy open up, at least 4 or 5 guys will not get to go.  For Afghanistan we had 12 applicants and 2 slots.  Maybe it‘s different where you are, but within Toronto we have surplus manpower and a shortage of slots.

  I know ofcourse that tours cannot have a high percentage of reservists, and I‘m not sure what the current percentage is...so maybe I‘m wrong and we are utilizing personnel as efficiently as possible.  I‘m just relating my personal observations, feel free to inform me if I‘m missing something.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Apr 2004)

Ok you want to go on tour.  Great cause I don‘t want to see Bosnia again and I‘ve only been once. I can‘t imagine those that have gone 4 or 5 times.  Anyway how about the multiple courses that run year round.  How many of you are lining up for those.  I know my BN could use everyone from Cpl‘s to leadership pers.


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Apr 2004)

I‘ve been teaching on courses every summer for the last 4 years, as well as 5 weekend courses during the same time period.  I‘ll be there again this summer.  We send plenty of personnel to instruct, but you‘re right, there usualy seems to be a shortage during the summer courses.  Guess I should have stayed a corporal untill I got a couple of tours under my belt.


----------



## willy (23 Apr 2004)

Half the problem when it comes to slotting reservists into reg force taskings, tours or otherwise, is the fact that there is a serious lack of communication between the units that are supposed to be exchanging pers.  If a reservist could just walk up to the front door of 2 PPCLI and ask for a position, I don‘t think there would be as many problems filling the spots.  They can‘t do that though.  The way it works right now, there are holdups and administrative shenanigans at every level between the gaining unit and Pte Bloggins from the Butt **** Fusiliers who eventually gets the tasking.  They‘ve actually come out with a new website which lists unfilled positions, and I think that‘s a step in the right direction.  Here‘s the link:

 http://armyonline.army.mil.ca/CLS/143000440000901/DEFAULT.ASP?Lng=E   

As it stands right now, both of you are right: the regs need more reserve augmentees, and not enough reservists can get the taskings they‘re begging for.


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (27 Apr 2004)

Sounds good, thanks for your help everyone.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Apr 2004)

That link doesn‘t appear to be working.


----------

