# CF Transformation and Upcoming Election



## Kev T (17 Nov 2005)

I know that nothing is ever set in stone or guaranteed but with the upcoming election will/can this affect the positive changes being made in the CF negatively? I mean there are a lot of improvements being made such as aircraft and ship purchases, the improvement of the light battalions, the standing up of the JATF, SOG, CANSOFCOM, SCTF, ......etc. Are these changes going ahead regardless of government changes because of our requirements in the military and the current global situation especially with terrorism, or can all these great changes with CF Transformation that we've been waiting years for get snuffed out like that because of some vote? Thanks.


----------



## McG (17 Nov 2005)

Kev T said:
			
		

> ... can all these great changes with CF Transformation that we've been waiting years for get snuffed out like that because of some vote?


Yes.


----------



## canuck101 (17 Nov 2005)

It has happened before and will happen again and again the voter has a short memory.


----------



## rdt2449 (17 Nov 2005)

what i dont understand is that, why is canada so anti-military, why is there no money invested into the military? is it hated or is it becasue the dumb politiciens feel that there is no need? I really think that if they dont do something about upgrading , sooner or later it will bite us in the butt and hard.


----------



## Kev T (17 Nov 2005)

It just seemed to me from what I've read that these changes/improvements with regards to CF Transformation were going ahead regardless and they were part of the CDS's goal and separate from the government. But I guess even the CDS is not capable without political support. The Liberals have been suprisingly supportive so far and they are traditionally not know for that but would another government in power be even more supportive like the Conservatives for example.


----------



## pbi (17 Nov 2005)

I have to confess that I'm also worried. As a voter, I'm not really sure that this election is truly necessary as opposed to letting the Govt get on with running things. Prehaps the public (if they actually turn out to vote...) may vent their frustration on those who are expecting to profit from this. Just a thought: I am not traditionally a Liberal voter, but I am willing to let this Govt get on with it.

As a soldier I am even more worried. It is difficult to imagine that, short of this Govt surviving intact (which may happen-see above), we will end up doing much better or even as well as a military. These are unprecedented days: the "stars" have been aligned better than I have seen them in 31 years. The worst case, of course, is that by some fluke the NDP return with even more seats, and no longer feel compelled to hold to the middle of the road (even as little as they have been...). We know quite well where that could lead.

Watch and shoot....or vote....or something.

Cheers


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (17 Nov 2005)

rdt2449 said:
			
		

> what i dont understand is that, why is canada so anti-military, why is there no money invested into the military?



 I don't believe Canadians as a whole are anti-military. But rather they have never needed to hide in their basements from the ravages of war, waiting for their military to liberate them. If you look at it like owning insurance on your car, yeah its crappy to have to pay money every month into something you most likely wont use but when that day comes that you need it, its damn nice to have.

 Unfortunately, Canadians seem to be more concerned with whats in their lap that particular day and not whats coming up in the future.


----------



## Haggis (17 Nov 2005)

There's an interesting discussion on a similar topic in this thread:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36467.0.html


----------



## Gayson (17 Nov 2005)

Canada is not anti-military.

The problem is the average canadian really cares about public health care, funding for specilized groups and social programs.  Parties that want votes are going to invest in these programs to stay in power, thus the CF becomes a secondary priority.

How many Canadians have we heard saying that they want the CF to get more money, but they don't want other programs to get less, and they aren't willing to pay more taxes. . .


----------



## George Wallace (17 Nov 2005)

J. Gayson said:
			
		

> Canada is not anti-military.
> 
> The problem is the average canadian really cares about public health care, funding for specilized groups and social programs.  Parties that want votes are going to invest in these programs to stay in power, thus the CF becomes a secondary priority.
> 
> How many Canadians have we heard saying that they want the CF to get more money, but they don't want other programs to get less, and they aren't willing to pay more taxes. . .


I am not sure that I would agree with that.  I would say it is a form of BLACKMAIL used by the government on the voting Public.  They want to fill their own agenda, and to do so they manipulate the Public with these silly "If you want better Health Care, we will have to cut__________" promises.  The Public has fallen for it every time.  It isn't only the Military that gets the shaft this way.  Other Departments have too.  And in the end, Health Care doesn't improve.  In fact, sometimes we get less Health Care.  

Now, if Jean Cretan had given all us guys defending the country $175,000 per annum Pensions, like he gave himself, then I imagine we would be very happy.


----------



## PViddy (17 Nov 2005)

I don't see how any government elected into power can not carry forward with some sort of increased fundingfor the Military.  I think the Canadian people have finally come to realize that our Canadian Forces have gone through too many years of neglect and underfunding. 

 I would suspect that this will actually be a big election platform for the 3 major parties in which to sway voters.

cheers

PV


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Nov 2005)

J. Gayson said:
			
		

> Canada is not anti-military.
> 
> The problem is the average canadian really cares about public health care, funding for specilized groups and social programs.   Parties that want votes are going to invest in these programs to stay in power, thus the CF becomes a secondary priority.
> 
> How many Canadians have we heard saying that they want the CF to get more money, but they don't want other programs to get less, and they aren't willing to pay more taxes. . .



I think you need to understand that the idea that universal, public _*free*_, health care and social programmes, in general, ought to be central to the _national fabric_ has its origins in the famous 1960 Kingston Conference in which Tom Kent, amongst others, developed the policy _directions_ which would guide the Liberal Party of Canada for 40+ years.

The key problem was _national unity_ which the Liberals, in 1960, saw as having two main components:

1.	Québec _nationalism_; and

2.	_Territorialism_ - which the Liberals saw as inimical to the strong, centralized federal state which the _Fathers of Confederation_ clearly wanted and which most Liberals saw as being the only _siren song_ which would tempt Québec away from the national 'centre'.

There is no doubt in my mind that the _Fathers_ did want a strong, centralized, federal state.  Québec's _place_ was, in 1867, an issue and the dreadful experiences of the US Civil War were fresh in everyone's minds.  The problem was (still is) that the Constitution they wrote, despite their intentions, decentralized those areas of responsibility which matter most to most people - the areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction, including the 'new' areas reserved for the feds, are not matters which concern Canadians, day-by-day.  Over the course of two world wars the Liberals learned that the federal government can _intrude_ into areas of political jurisdiction with no appreciable political risk - only the tiniest possible minority of Canadians knows or cares about the Constitution; their votes are negligible.

The Kingston Conference saw federal social programmes, especially health care, as the best possible tool to:

"¢	Strengthen national unity and, simultaneously, reduce the territorialist _pull_ which weakened the national 'centre'; and

"¢	Reinforce the Liberal Party's already strong position as the _moderate, progressive 'Party of the Centre'_.

The aim became:

1.	Intrude, further and further into areas on (constitutionally mandated) provincial responsibility;

2.	Blur the line (regarding _desirable_ social programmes) between the national government and the Liberal Party; and

3.	Make social programmes _central_ to Canadians' expectations from the nation-state.

The last item was paramount and it was easy.  In the 1960s there were (my _guess_timate) 4,000,000+ voters who had _come of age_ before or during the Great Depression.  The Depression (always capitalized) was, even more than World War II, what defined them and their political agenda.  (In the '62 and '63 general elections about 7,800,000 Canadians voted - a few were born between and 1929 (the start of the Depression) 1942 (the voting age was 21 back then) but the 'baby boomers' were not, yet a factor.)  The Depression generation embraced social programmes as only those who had experienced real hardship - which *I suggest* cannot even be imagined by 90% of native born Canadians born after 1936 - can.  Their children - the boomers - took social programmes and all they implied about a _just society_, etc, to heart.

Moving social programmes, especially _free_ health care, up to a primary position in our national self-image meant that other, less tangible things, including thoughts about foreign and defence policy, moved down, and down, and down.

By 1969, when Pierre Trudeau (a bloody fool of the first order) and his foreign policy _guru_ Ivan Head repudiated Louis St Laurent's policy of an active, responsible, _leading middle power_ Canada - in an act of policy vandalism which still animates the Liberal party of Canada, Canadians were ready and willing to embrace something akin to pacifism.  The Viet Nam war didn't make it hard - US 'culture' (including _infotainment_ via the all-powerful TV news] had, already, completely swamped English Canada, and the American anti-war movement spread world-wide, tarring all things military with its brush.

Turning the ship around and regaining St Laurent's *correct* policy - the only _independent_ Canadian foreign policy we ever had - will require many years and much money and, I believe, leadership other than that which can be provided by the Liberal Party of Canada until the (now) _thirty-somethings_ take power.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Nov 2005)

Some further bad indicators:

1. Lots of news coverage about the CF is distinctly slanted against "us" and especially Gen Hillier. The cover of a recent "Saturday Night" magazine had a Gen Hillier on the cover over the title "There will be Blood" and a subtitle saying Gen Hillier wants to transform the CF into a more American force. This is certainly an effort by the editorial staff to push the anti-war and anti American buttons very hard. There is much other commentary with the old zero sum arguments of CF transformation being paid for by (name your favorite program).

2. The Federal Cabinet shelved the "fast tracking" proposal for purchasing new aircraft etc. Certainly given the rust-out problems and the relentless reporting of equipment problems, this could have been a "win win" scenario for us and the Libranos (see, Mr Dithers can make a decision, we do care about our servicemembers, etc.)

3. Although everyone is positioning themselves for a fall/winter election, I have yet to hear Defence come up as an issue at all (maybe I missed it....)

Face it troops, a long time ago, Canada made a strategic decision to let the United States take on the task of defending Canada. There are a lot of direct and indirect consequences to dong this, but for the Liberals, who's entire focus is inwardly directed (how to gain and maintain power), the loss of international influence, diplomatic clout or anything else is inconsequential to the main goal. Given the increasing importance of Globalization, this attitude will eventually bounce back and bite them really hard, but since the rot has been gradual so far, the electorate hasn't paid too much attention. This is similar to standing next to a tree which is rotting from the centre; it looks strong, but you will discover your mistake when the wind rises.....


----------



## rdt2449 (17 Nov 2005)

I just find it a shame because im going to apply to the Forces in january so i can do my basic in the summer at st-jean, and i want to be in the infantry for the rest of my life or as long as possible. I hope canada does do something soon about upgrading because i dont want to have to use weapons or whatever thats older than i am and is concidered inferior or almost useless compared to other nations equipment.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (17 Nov 2005)

rdt2449:  It might comfort you to know that - at the soldier level - our equipment (despite some quibbles) is normally of the first order.  We have equipment issued to individuals that other armies - some from Western Europe - only dream of and our infantry (on deployment anyway) resembles some nations' special forces.  We can do that because such equipment doesn't require a full "capital program" that demands political intervention, unlike big ticket items aircraft, vehicles, etc.. (As an aside to the initiated, I really don't want to start a discussion on the merits of the Tac vest or the C7A2 here).

The problems arise when you're trying to plan a deployment and are faced with a vehicle "cap" because we don't have adequate airlift or are trying to restructure the CF around a new, bolder, operational concept and cannot do it without extensive political support.  You generally don't have to deal with these issues as a new guy.


----------



## rdt2449 (17 Nov 2005)

Awsome Thanks...
anyways im not going to vote anyways because none of the parties have convinced me, maybe im just not gullable enough.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Nov 2005)

Read the party platforms carefully (go to their web sites), consider how well the parties have lived up to their promises/proposals (i.e. 90 odd "Red Book promises, many repeated every election since 1993.....hint) and base your decision on the information available.

Saying you won't vote is a cop out, and certainly what some parties hope for. If you plan to be a member of the CF, you are making a statement that you are or intend to be a person of action. When you are out in the Field or on Operation, you may well be faced with a series of unpalatable choices and insufficient information, but you better not sit down and  say "you don't know what to do" or "you don't care", or "I'm not convinced" (not in MY section anyway!). 

rtd2249, I might be dissapointed if you choose to vote "Green" or something like that, but at least you made a choice and are prepared to live with the consequences, and I will respect that. I won't respect a cop out, though.


----------



## Gunnar (17 Nov 2005)

They say the definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

More and more people are refusing to vote.  And the Liberals get elected.

Recent polls suggest that most Canadians believe that Martin knew about the kickback scams, or should have known, and that Liberal corruption is rampant.  They also believe that there IS a culture of entitlement in the Liberal government.  So, they have the perfect solution....when the election comes, they'll all vote Liberal, just to teach them a lesson.

When your kid steals money from you for the fifth time, do you punish him severely, or shrug your shoulders and say "whaddaya gonna do?".  Do you then put him in charge of your debit card too?  What kind of message are you sending?

A common complaint is that there isn't any choice in political parties....I submit that the problem is that there IS a choice....except that Canadians don't want to make choices...they want a nice soft Liberal government to take care of them and make them feel warm and fuzzy.  They don't want to research party platforms or ideologies, they want to sit at home, believe what the Liberal-owned media tells them, and then vote on the basis of their poorly-informed consciences.

At least in Quebec, most of the Parti Quebecois or Bloc Quebecois are disaffected Liberals...there is the illusion of choice.  Sure, you get the same socialist crap from all parties invovled, but you can vote Liberal, or vote liberal....thus giving the illusion of choice.  Canadians' biggest problem right now is that there isn't another Liberal party to vote for....the Progressive Conservatives, people I refer to as Liberals with blue ties, were another Liberal party.  Voting for them allowed the public to believe in the polite fiction that there was a difference between them and the Liberals, without having to actually admit that there was none.

So, you can get informed, vote your INFORMED conscience, or you can sit on your hands, do nothing, spend what little money you don't have taxed away from you to pay for government perks on a little lube to make the process easier.  Just don't forget that I'm getting screwed too, in part, thanks to you.

Democracy is a participatory form of government.  What have YOU done to support it, or support the things you believe in?


----------



## UberCree (17 Nov 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> rtd2249, I might be dissapointed if you choose to vote "Green" or something like that, but at least you made a choice and are prepared to live with the consequences, and I will respect that. I won't respect a cop out, though.



What is wrong with voting Green?  They had my vote last election.

I 100% support increasing gas taxes, subsidizing public transport etc.


----------



## Haggis (17 Nov 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin brought out an interesting point in another thread:



> CF Transformation is proceeded extremely rapidly - to the point where some of us are becoming somewhat uncomfortable at the lack of an articulate strategic "plan" and the forced pace of the changes.  Equipment purchases in the present environment cannot be conducted without fully describing how they fit into the plan.  I think I have a decent idea, but no more, and I'm fairly close to the issues at hand.  I can only imagine what the anti-military establishment thinks when presented with a $12 billion dollar package that detractors claim is generated "off the cuff" by Generals to support a mission that, to their mind, is merely fighting a war on behalf of the Americans...



This is very true.  Beyond the announced stand up of the JATF very little has been articulated, even within the CF, on what the desired end state of Transformation means to us and, more importantly, the taxpayer.  So far, another layer of Command has been created and, so far, this layer has been silent.

That being said, until the other JTFs are stood up, CANCOM won't likely have a firm grip on what it has for assets so it is prudent that they don't engage in public speculation.



			
				Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> The problems arise when you're trying to plan a deployment and are faced with a vehicle "cap" because we don't have adequate airlift or are trying to restructure the CF around a new, bolder, operational concept and cannot do it without extensive political support.   You generally don't have to deal with these issues as a new guy.



One only needs to take a few steps back from the coal face to see the institutional and cultural obstructions that CF Transformation has to overcome.  I fear that an election may delay Transformation and give the careerist obstructionists time to re-org.


----------



## rdt2449 (17 Nov 2005)

I know I will vote but ill do some research first like you said, gave me a good idea to do. when you mean voting green though what do you mean?


----------



## AoD71 (17 Nov 2005)

rdt2449 said:
			
		

> what i dont understand is that, why is canada so anti-military, why is there no money invested into the military? is it hated or is it becasue the dumb politiciens feel that there is no need? I really think that if they dont do something about upgrading , sooner or later it will bite us in the butt and hard.



Actually I think that it has already "bitten us in the butt". Lack of financial support has already taken its toll on the Canadian Forces. Although things are starting to go in the right direction, there are still problems. Everyone knows about the old equipment, vehicles, and the small number of members in the CFs. People ask me what I am doing now that I graduated from highschool, and I tell them I am joining the CFs. Sometimes I get the stupid reaction that they think I am kidding, as if the Canadian military is a joke. A lot of people don't respect and appreciate what is being done for them. They think that the Canadian military is some kind of social club. I think these financial problems stem from the fact that some Canadians have false illusions of safety, that organizations such as Al Qaeda don't pose a threat to us. They think that the US is here to take the heat for us, and protect us in the possible case that (god forbid) something horrible happen on Canadian soil. Its high-time they wake up and smell the sh!t that polutes this world, and start taking these threats seriously.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Nov 2005)

rdt2449 said:
			
		

> I know I will vote but ill do some research first like you said, gave me a good idea to do. when you mean voting green though what do you mean?



The Green Party of Canada. Another thing for you to Google.

Nov 28 is coming quickly troops so we don't have much time to hit the web sites and buttonhole the people who want our votes. Let's go!


----------



## George Wallace (18 Nov 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The Green Party of Canada. Another thing for you to Google.
> 
> Nov 28 is coming quickly troops so we don't have much time to hit the web sites and buttonhole the people who want our votes. Let's go!


Almost looked like you may be proporting the creation of the CADPAT Party - a Non-military Pro-military Non-Gender Specific Egalitarian Party.





I subscribe to the publications from the Dept of Redundant Redundancies.


----------



## redleafjumper (18 Nov 2005)

Call me cynical, but it is interesting that the Liberals would enact policies designed to take away, or really compete with votes from the party most likely to defeat them in the upcoming election.  I can imagine the planning session dialogue:  

M - "How can we take votes away from the Conservatives?"   
Mc- "Well, we could promise tax cuts, and increase military spending..."
M - "Sure that's a good start, but how do we show that we are different from the conservatives? After al, we don't want to alienate our traditional supporters."
Mc - "I know, we could go on about banning handguns - it's perfect - if we ban them we can save money on the registry and the Toronto soccer moms will see we care about public safety!"
M - "Hey that's great, let's get some back-bencher to raise it so we have plausible denial in case the issue doesn't fly!"
Mc - "That should work...  Just don't mention advertising contracts!"
M - "So we aren't really serious about tax cuts and the military stuff are we?"
Mc - "Heck no, we'll give them something flashy like new DART vehicles or some such thing and then quietly kill any procurement plans after we win."

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.


----------



## Kev T (19 Nov 2005)

I like to think with the current global situation that this country has no choice but to improve it's military. As much as some people like to deny it we are a country at war and have been for the past couple of years. The way it's going the war on terrorism doesn't look like it is going to end any time soon. From some people I've talked to it seems as though Canadians are finally starting to wake up and smell the roses. I think they are starting to realize that unless we do something to revamp the military things won't get better or safer for our troops who are entering more and more dangerous operations e.g. this upcoming combat mission in Khandahar involving 2000 of our nation's finest. People are kind of tired of the fact. Our soldiers are going to keep entering more and more dangerous situations out there to minimize the threat of terrorism not just in Canada but everywhere and right now we don't have a choice but to improve.


----------



## R0B (20 Nov 2005)

I know a lot of people who _hate_ the Canadian Forces, and think Canada should disband its military so that we can live in some sort of socialist utopia with free healthcare and affordable housing for the inept.

The Canadian Forces will continue to be neglected by the government because it's so far removed from the public eye. The only news you ever hear is bad news, save for the annual rememberance day token "thank you, veterans" news report. Why would the government want to invest in a military force that will seldom see action if it can bribe it's voters with welfare checks and steal the rest?

Terrorists aren't going to attack Canada, but if they did, I'd bet a lot of people would demand that the Canadian Forces be withdrawn from Afghanistan to prevent further attacks.


----------



## 1feral1 (20 Nov 2005)

As for Cdns and the military and how they feel, I don't really know now, but after living in Canada for the first 34 yrs of my life, I seen more gratitude for the Defence Force here in one day (25 Apr 95) than I seen in my entire life in Canada. Infact it gave be goosebumps and a sense of pride which was in many ways overwhelming. I never expereinced this intensness before. I guess you just have to be here on ANZAC Day to see for yourself, and when you are a part of it, its even better.

Its not that we as Cdns hate our Defence Force, we just look at the whole thing differently compaired to the Australian view. Appreciation is openly expressed here in more ways than one can describe. 

I never really seen this extent of wide open national pride, awareness, gratitude and thankfulness in Canada.

Different strokes for different folks.

Aside from ANZAC Day, the general public are always aware of deployments and other activities the ADF is in. Such as costal patrols, etc. Most support ther troops, but some might be dismayed at the govt over our continious action in Iraq anad A-stan. Its viewed as our government, right or wrong, either way, support our troops.

Of course we have our fare share of leftist wingnuts (elected and otherwise) who would love to see our weapons smelted and turned into farm machinery. There is always a few nuts in every basket.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## 1feral1 (20 Nov 2005)

R0B said:
			
		

> Terrorists aren't going to attack Canada



Why do you think this?

I would not be so nieve mate. You have no idea whats going on in the living rooms and other places as you read this, secret meetings, etc right in dear ole Canada. Lets hope they don't attack, but there are many who view you own existance and what you stand for as pure evil, and want you and your way of life ended, all just for being who you are.

Extreme radical islamic terrorism is alive and well, and everyhwere these days and Canada is NOT exempt by any means, and those that deny this are simply lying to themselves.

I'll close by saying I wish you were right.

Wes


----------



## George Wallace (20 Nov 2005)

R0B said:
			
		

> Terrorists aren't going to attack Canada, but if they did, I'd bet a lot of people would demand that the Canadian Forces be withdrawn from Afghanistan to prevent further attacks.


Obviously, with this statement you don't believe we have any Terrorists/Murders in Canada.   I suppose you also don't remember where the Air India Bombers resided?   Two bombings, one blowing up an Air India flight off the coast of Ireland, and the other, thankfully, blowing up less effectively on the ground in Tokyo; all originating in BC.   The Millennium bomber from Montreal.   How many more are sitting in wait?   Open your eyes; Smell the Coffee: They are here.....Waiting their time.


----------



## R0B (20 Nov 2005)

On the contrary, I'm sure there are terrorists in Canada, but they would have little or no reason to attack Canadian targets when they could do more damage and attract more attention with some other target.

When I say "terrorist," I'm referring to foreign terrorists, such as Islamic fundementalists.


----------



## PViddy (20 Nov 2005)

> On the contrary, I'm sure there are terrorists in Canada, but they would have little or no reason to attack Canadian targets when they could do more damage and attract more attention with some other target.
> 
> When I say "terrorist," I'm referring to foreign terrorists, such as Islamic fundementalists.



oh man... i'll let sombody else take this one.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Nov 2005)

It is only the typical 'naivete' that the majority of Canadians hold.  None, think of there ever being nasty people out there more than willing to tear their heart out and ram it down their throat to choke on.   : "It would never happen here."   :  It already has....but just like the Liberal Party's fiasco's, it is so soon forgotten by the sheeple.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Nov 2005)

R0B said:
			
		

> Terrorists aren't going to attack Canada, but if they did, I'd bet a lot of people would demand that the Canadian Forces be withdrawn from Afghanistan to prevent further attacks.



Let's see; the FLQ, the Sikh "Air India" bombers, The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE, most famous for having Paul Martin Jr attend a fund raising dinner in Toronto in 2000, a PSYOPS effort to co-opt a Canadian politician and demoralize Tamils living in Canada), the Armenian Secret Army assasinating Turkish diplomats in the 1980s, the "anarchist" group which bombed Litton Industries in the 1980s, the Mohawk "Warriors" at Oka.......

Funny, I don't see too many demands for the CF to garrison the streets *or* to increase our size and resources to deal with the threats.


----------



## R0B (21 Nov 2005)

First, I never wrote or implied that there aren't any terrorists in Canada. 
Second, I wrote that "terrorists won't" attack Canada, not that they have in the past, and given that I mentioned Afghanistan in the same sentence, it should be pretty clear that by "terrorist," I implied some sort of Islamic fundamentalists.

[quote author=a_majoor=]Let's see; the FLQ[/quote]

Why not bring up the Upper Canada Rebellion while you're at it?

[quote author=George Wallace]I suppose you also don't remember where the Air India Bombers resided?  Two bombings, one blowing up an Air India flight off the coast of Ireland, and the other, thankfully, blowing up less effectively on the ground in Tokyo; all originating in BC.[/quote]
[quote author=a_majoor=]the Sikh "Air India" bombers[/quote]

This was not an attack against Canada.

[quote author=a_majoor=]The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE, most famous for having Paul Martin Jr attend a fund raising dinner in Toronto in 2000, a PSYOPS effort to co-opt a Canadian politician and demoralize Tamils living in Canada)[/quote]

They didn't attack Canada.

[quote author=a_majoor=]the Armenian Secret Army assasinating Turkish diplomats in the 1980s[/quote]

This was not an attack against Canada.

[quote author=a_majoor=]the "anarchist" group which bombed Litton Industries in the 1980s[/quote]

An American company that manufactured components for American cruise missiles.

[quote author=a_majoor=]the Mohawk "Warriors" at Oka[/quote]

Terrorists? Not according to Canada.

[quote author=George Wallace]The Millennium bomber from Montreal.[/quote]

And he didn't attack Canada.

[quote author=a_majoor=]Funny, I don't see too many demands for the CF to garrison the streets *or* to increase our size and resources to deal with the threats.[/quote]

Would you actually like to see the military garrison the country as if this were the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany? I'll restate my point, and if something happens to prove me wrong, I'll gratefully concede, but terrorists aren't going to attack Canada. Foreign terrorists have no good reason to attack this country, and would achieve little by carry out any attack. Domestic terrorists pose a negligible threat, which, in any event, would be best controlled by the police, not the military.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Nov 2005)

:brickwall:


----------



## PViddy (21 Nov 2005)

: ???


----------



## armyvern (21 Nov 2005)

R0B said:
			
		

> First, I never wrote or implied that there aren't any terrorists in Canada.
> Second, I wrote that "terrorists won't" attack Canada, not that they have in the past, and given that I mentioned Afghanistan in the same sentence, it should be pretty clear that by "terrorist," I implied some sort of Islamic fundamentalists.


Islamic fundamentalists are alive and well in Canada my dear. Landed immigrants/past refugee claimants who are now *Canadian Citizens * I'm sure are among them.


			
				R0B said:
			
		

> Why not bring up the Upper Canada Rebellion while you're at it?


Because the Upper Canada Rebellion was not a terrorist action brought about by terrorists.


			
				R0B said:
			
		

> This was not an attack against Canada.


Deliberately planned and actioned on Canadian soil (although the end-result occurred on foreign soils) by anded immigrants with Canadian citizenship as noted above. Therefore, a Canadian crime. Remember the trial?


			
				R0B said:
			
		

> They didn't attack Canada.


No but they certainly tried to involve us now didn't they? Deliberately once again. How blind are you really?


			
				R0B said:
			
		

> This was not an attack against Canada.


Some of these attacks were planned and carried out on Canadian soil, when somebody abuses our country like that...I like to think of it as an attack upon our morals and country... apparently you seem to justify it's not meaning anything.
http://www.ataa.org/ataa/ref/atrocities/intro/armenian_terrorism_and_the.html


			
				R0B said:
			
		

> An American company that manufactured components for American cruise missiles.


A company which employed Canadian workers and was located where?? Toronto. I guess that does in fact make it an attack upon Canada. Unless, of course, I've missed when exactly Toronto really did become a country of it's own.
[url]http://www.blackstarreview.com/rev-0090.html]http://www.blackstarreview.com/rev-0090.html][url]http://www.blackstarreview.com/rev-0090.html[/url]


			
				R0B said:
			
		

> Terrorists? Not according to Canada.


But those involved were not your average law-abiding citizens either.


			
				R0B said:
			
		

> And he didn't attack Canada.


Another permanent visitor to Canada who used our soil to deliberately plan his attack on a foreign soil. That makes Canada a part of the activity and also made it a criminal offense in this country, whether you want to admit it or not.


			
				R0B said:
			
		

> Would you actually like to see the military garrison the country as if this were the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany? I'll restate my point, and if something happens to prove me wrong, I'll gratefully concede, but terrorists aren't going to attack Canada. Foreign terrorists have no good reason to attack this country, and would achieve little by carry out any attack. Domestic terrorists pose a negligible threat, which, in any event, would be best controlled by the police, not the military.


Let's see now, foreign citizens and Islamic radicals (some of whom are Canadian Citizens) are right now planning attacks wherever. These people degrade our Country by perpetuating their crap and planning their activities on our soil, and some are doing so right now. Whether or not the physically attack occurs in our country is irrelevant, they are already committing a crime in this nation and therefore attacking the very foundations of Canada.

Wow, you are out there.


----------



## R0B (21 Nov 2005)

[quote author=armyvern=]Islamic fundamentalists are alive and well in Canada my dear. Landed immigrants/past refugee claimants who are now *Canadian Citizens * I'm sure are among them.[/quote]

Sure, it may be. I never said there weren't terrorists in Canada, I said only that terrorists won't attack Canada. I said it a few times, did you miss that part?
Islamic fundamentalists aren't terrorists until they commit a terrorist act or conspire to commit a terrorist act. Until then, they're just practicing their Charter rights. Resist all urges to send them all to some sort of concentration camp. If they don't commit or plan terrorist acts, they're not terrorists. Should the threat of that they may possibly commit some sort of terrorist act justify increased military spending? No. I support increased defense spending for legitimate reasons, but this is nothing more than fear mongering. Besides, assume for a second that Osama bin Laden is hiding in Canada, planning to blow up Roger's Center. Who could best deal with this situation? The Canadian Forces, or CSIS, the RCMP or Provincial or municipal police? The police, obviously, which is why defense spending is not justified in light of this alleged terrorist threat, and why the government doesn't increase defense spending to deal with terrorism, except perhaps to placate voters. If you want to argue, try to counter points I actually make, instead of trying to put words in my mouth.

[quote author=armyvern=]Because the Upper Canada Rebellion was not a terrorist action brought about by terrorists.[/quote]

Why not? If you consider the LTTE and the FLQ to be terrorist groups, why aren't the rebels from the UCR? Not only did they inflict more casualties than the FLQ, the government also dealt with them far more harshly. The only reason they weren't branded terrorist is because the word wasn't used at the time.

[quote author=armyvern=]Deliberately planned and actioned on Canadian soil (although the end-result occurred on foreign soils) by anded immigrants with Canadian citizenship as noted above. Therefore, a Canadian crime. Remember the trial?[/quote]

So that means you have some Canadian citizens and immigrants who are guilty of committing a terrorist act (though they were found to be not-guilty.) Did they attack Canada? Was their goal to attack the Canadian government or Canadian society? No. As a result of the Air India attacks, should the Canadian government increase military spending? No.

[quote author=armyvern=]No but they certainly tried to involve us now didn't they? Deliberately once again. How blind are you really?[/quote]

Sure, they tried to legitimize their cause, and the Prime Minister attended because tens of thousands of Canadian Tamils support them. That doesn't change the fact that their organization is allegedly responsible for acts of terrorism, but did they attack Canada? No. Were they trying to attack or harm the Canadian government or Canadian society? No, quite the opposite.

[quote author=armyvern=]Some of these attacks were planned and carried out on Canadian soil, when somebody abuses our country like that...I like to think of it as an attack upon our morals and country... apparently you seem to justify it's not meaning anything.[/quote]

Sure, they abused our country and its laws. Does that make them terrorists? No. Do counterfeit DVD and drug smugglers who use Canada as a gateway to the US abuse Canada and its laws? Yes. Are they terrorists? No. Is Israel a terrorist state for assassinating Gerald Bull in Belgium? No. An attack on "morals and country" does not constitute terrorism. By such a lose definition, gay marriage or abortion campaigners could be considered terrorists by tens of thousands. Ask yourself, did they attack Canada? No, they did not.

[quote author=armyvern=]A company which employed Canadian workers and was located where?? Toronto. I guess that does in fact make it an attack upon Canada. Unless, of course, I've missed when exactly Toronto really did become a country of it's own.[/quote]

_Yeah, you got me. I just checked map and Toronto isn't a country._ Did they bomb Litton because it employed Canadians or because it was located in Toronto? No, they bombed it because it was an American defense contractor that designed and manufactured components for American cruise missiles. I agree that this is an act of terrorism that occurred within Canada, I never said it wasn't. This is probably the best case you'll be able to reference, and it took place over 23 years ago. Not to mention, it in no way justifies increasing the CF's budget.

[quote author=armyvern=]But those involved were not your average law-abiding citizens either.[/quote]

I never said they were, I simply stated that the Canadian Government does not consider them to be terrorists.

[quote author=armyvern=]Another permanent visitor to Canada who used our soil to deliberately plan his attack on a foreign soil. That makes Canada a part of the activity and also made it a criminal offense in this country, whether you want to admit it or not.[/quote]

Again, it's as if you're trying to argue something I'm not. I said he didn't attack Canada. He didn't. Is he a terrorist? Yes. Should Canada have arrested him if possible? Yes. Would have increasing the Canadian Forces' budget led to an arrest? No. What's your point?

[quote author=armyvern=]Let's see now, foreign citizens and Islamic radicals (some of whom are Canadian Citizens) are right now planning attacks wherever. These people degrade our Country by perpetuating their crap and planning their activities on our soil, and some are doing so right now. Whether or not the physically attack occurs in our country is irrelevant, they are already committing a crime in this nation and therefore attacking the very foundations of Canada.[/quote]

Unless they attack Canada, I'm right, because I've never contended that there are no terrorists in Canada. Increasing the CF's budget won't stop these people from entering Canada or planning terrorist acts. If Canada wants to stop them, it should rather implement tougher border regulations, particularly focused on screening for foreign terrorists and criminals, and should increase the budget police forces have to investigate suspected terrorists.

Again, terrorists won't attack Canada.


----------



## armyvern (21 Nov 2005)

R0B said:
			
		

> Unless they attack Canada, I'm right, because I've never contended that there are no terrorists in Canada. Increasing the CF's budget won't stop these people from entering Canada or planning terrorist acts. If Canada wants to stop them, it should rather implement tougher border regulations, particularly focused on screening for foreign terrorists and criminals, and should increase the budget police forces have to investigate suspected terrorists.


Wow...we have some big border's to protect, currently also well within the mandate of the CF who, by the way actually exist, to enforce our Sovereign status and thus our borders, peacekeeping is a filler. As for example our Naval fleet does with it's soverignty patrols. Jump down off the horse your riding and get back to your mid-terms I presume. I'm getting the feeling here you'd like to see the CF, whose primary mandate it is to protect the borders of our nation and it's soverignty - possibly with their lives - , disbanded with all resulting monies saved going to hire enough police officer's to do the job.  


			
				R0B said:
			
		

> Again, terrorists won't attack Canada.


I don't think there's a person on this board who would wish you were wrong with this thought. My thought is that when these guys plan and carry out such crap from our soil...it is already an attack upon our country. That obviously is not your view. I think you're wrong.


----------



## McG (21 Nov 2005)

This thread is getting stupid and no longer seems related to the initial question.   The government in power sets policy.   Therefore, it is the perogative of whoever forms the next government to stop the current transformation path that the CF is following.   That does not mean that everything reverts to how it was last year.   It could mean that a new vision for CF transformation is impossed (for better or worse).

Instead of launching to the conclusion that "dumb politicians" will feel there is no need for a military, maybe we could have at least looked at transformation and identified those asspects which we feel are so important that we would want any new government to keep.   Are there elements we'd like changed/added/thrown-out?  We had a few good threads looking in this direction.

In all honesty, if the Boogeymen in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, etc are our biggest worry then it is the RCMP and CSIS that need the money more.  At the same time, when a nation looks at terrorist attacks, organized and/or launched against others from within its boarders, and deciedes those attacks are not its problem; that country will very soon find itself the target of the countries that were hit by the terrorists (just look at Afghanistan).  But, lets get the thread back to CF transformation.  What *should* the politicians do?


----------



## PViddy (21 Nov 2005)

Well,  to build upon my initial post, i hope the answer will be nothing.  If a new party is elected into office, i hope they will stay the course on the current direction the CF is heading.  I believe we are actually making some progress in terms of getting the equipment that soldiers really need to do their job.  I think that generally the Canadian public see it this way as well.  It will be interesting to see what the various parties do to address this issue in the upcoming election.  I will be paying close attention.


----------



## R0B (21 Nov 2005)

armyvern said:
			
		

> I'm getting the feeling here you'd like to see the CF, whose primary mandate it is to protect the borders of our nation and it's soverignty - possibly with their lives - , disbanded with all resulting monies saved going to hire enough police officer's to do the job.



Not at all, I'm just saying that terrorism is a negligible threat; it isn't the prerogative of the Canadian Forces to investigate or arrest terrorists within Canada.

I'd like to see the Canadian Forces' budget increased so that more money can be invested into training and equipment, namely, to allow for aging hardware to be replaced more frequently.


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Nov 2005)

Looks to me like transformation has enough kinetic energy that the snake may just swallow the hog, only with less perceptible compressions over the next few weeks and months.


----------



## McG (23 Nov 2005)

The "terrorism tangent" has moved: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36693/post-298881.html#msg298881


----------



## a_majoor (23 Nov 2005)

The biggest problem with CF transformation is the fact we are building from such a small foundation.

The promised 5000 reg and 3000 reserve troops cannot be trained and integrated into the CF in less than five years because we don't have enough uniforms and boots to cloth them, or instructors to train them. Infanteer sent me a link about the US Marines developing a new operational concept called Distributive Operations:
http://www.mcwl.quantico.usmc.mil/SV/SV_DO.cfm which depends on platoons having a vast increase in communications means among other things; we have a hard time training for conventional ops with the limited amount of kit we have, much less being in a position to attempt transformational initiatives. 

There seems to be no overarching concept or doctrine for transformation, but rather a series of well meaning attempts to correct long overdue deficiencies in particular areas without tying it all together. (Just read the various threads on Armoured Recce in the Combat Arms and Equipment forums. We have vehicles which may be well suited to particular tasks being purchased, but the end result is a mis mash of capabilities which even tied together fail to operate in the high end of "Full Spectrum Ops").

This short term thinking solves short term problems (i.e. replacing ancient aircraft or getting "mine proofs" for Afghanistan), but leaves us short in the long run. Replacing old Hercs with new Hercs still limits lifts because of size, weight and range, if by transformation we want to extend our reach, then the C-130 is not the answer.

Transformation is going to take a long time, require some very difficult changes to take place at the doctrinal level, upset a lot of apple carts (both inside and outside the CF) and require a much more sustained and detailed selling job than has yet been attempted.


----------



## Kev T (23 Nov 2005)

PViddy said:
			
		

> If a new party is elected into office, i hope they will stay the course on the current direction the CF is heading.   I believe we are actually making some progress in terms of getting the equipment that soldiers really need to do their job.   I think that generally the Canadian public see it this way as well.   It will be interesting to see what the various parties do to address this issue in the upcoming election.



I pretty much agree with this. Transformation will take time of course and still has a ways to go but it's a start. I am just glad that we have now realized that a dramatic change is required and are actually taking steps, albiet little ones, but at least somethings happening. Yes even with transformation the CF could be a lot better in my opinion. The ball is rolling, slowly but at least rolling, and as long as it doesn't stop rolling then we should be alright (personally I wish it would roll a lot faster though).


----------

