# Defence Policy in the 2006 General Election



## ArmyRick (29 Nov 2005)

OK, so once again we head to the polls. Moderators forgive me if this has already been done. With army.ca and the elections, we know that defence policy and procurement is going to be a big issue for us. So I wanted to start this thread where we can swap ideas, policies, elections promises and other goodies.


----------



## ArmyRick (29 Nov 2005)

Anybody know what the Liberals and Conservatives have up their sleeve for defence promises in the up coming election? I don't mention NDP because I know defence is so far on the back burner with them that its probably not even on the stove.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Nov 2005)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I don't mention NDP because I know defence is so far on the back burner with them that its probably not even on the stove.



The Dippers know about stoves?? Thought they just gathered around the community bonfire, cooking tofu burgers and bemoaning the death of the utopian dream


----------



## MG34 (29 Nov 2005)

I could give a damn what the lieberals have to say.


----------



## FastEddy (30 Nov 2005)

MG34 said:
			
		

> I could give a damn what the lieberals have to say.




 I must say, your approach certinly sounds like the intelligent way to go about this mess we now have to decide on.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Nov 2005)

Just a note, this thread is for specific discussion on how defence policy is being addressed in the campaign for the January 2006 general election.  If you want to discuss the general politics of the campaign, the appropriate thread is here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36886.0.html


----------



## KevinB (30 Nov 2005)

Well according to the National last night, Defence once again did not make the Canadian Top 10 issues.


----------



## KevinB (30 Nov 2005)

Disappointed - not surprised


----------



## SoF (30 Nov 2005)

I'm not really big on politics so I'm just going to vote for which ever party that the Canadian Forces will benefit from most. I'm just wondering if anyone knows which party that may be. I'm just going to assume it's not the liberals.


----------



## xFusilier (30 Nov 2005)

Do your own homework.  Go to the various party websites, read their platforms and make a decision for yourself.


----------



## SoF (30 Nov 2005)

I checked some political party sites before I posted my question and coudn't find anything related to dnd. Probably have to wait until the campain gets flowin to here their true agendas.


----------



## KevinB (30 Nov 2005)

HINT -- NONE CARE ABOUT THE CF, THE CPC LIKELY DO NOT CARE LESS - BUT HAVE AN IDIOT DEFENCE CRITIC


----------



## Hunter (30 Nov 2005)

While I'm interested in at least listening to what all the parties have to say, I tend to agree with MG34 inasmuch as it doesn't matter what they promise, they will not get my vote.   After what we have seen with the Gomery report, I don't know how anyone could vote for them.   The last election was won with money stolen from the Canadian people.   The sponsorship program was supposed to fight separatism, but instead it succeeded in alienating Quebecers with the insulting notion that they can be bought.   People call Mulroney corrupt, but when his ministers were involved in scandal, they were forced to resign.   The Liberals, on the other hand, close ranks and attack the messenger instead of addressing the message.

People say Paul Martin brought us a prosperous economy.   The reality is that the Liberals benefited from the economic groundwork laid by the Mulroney government.   Free trade, while having a negative impact in some market sectors, has been a net benefit to the Canadian economy.   And then there is the GST.   Chretien promised to scrap the GST, and we still have it.   The fact is that without the GST Martin would have never balanced a single budget.   Speaking of balanced budgets, the Liberals tend to go on about not running a deficit (thanks to the GST), they never talk about the national debt that Trudeau gave us.

People call Stephen Harper scary.    But I've never heard anyone give a single concrete example of how his policies are something to worry about, just that he's generally scary.   I'm starting to think that people with this viewpoint are just reading newspaper headlines and not much more.   People say his religious convictions will influence the government agenda.   Stephen Harper isn't Stockwell Day, and I think people are just making an assumption about him.   On the gay marriage issue, he said yesterday that he would revisit the issue by conducting a vote to see if the house wants to revisit the issue, and if the vote is yes then they would have a completely free vote on the issue.   How is that scary?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not completely happy with the Conservative party.   I think Stephen Harper does a terrible job of communicating the message.   I think his staff must be bumbling idiots who can't find their collective arse with both hands for all the times they've dropped the ball.   And historically I have always been a Liberal supporter.   I just can't accept the complete lack of integrity that has infected the Liberal party.

With regards to who which party would be better for the military it's a simple issue.   In the past 37 years we have had Conservative government for 8 years, 9 moths.   The rest has been under the Liberals.   While the Conservatives did make cuts to the military under the 'peace dividend' they did makes some major investments.   For example the CF-18s& the Cormorant SAR helicopters - the program the Liberals cancelled and paid $500 million penalty, and we still don't have a Sea King replacement).   

What have the Liberals given us?   As mentioned they still haven't found a replacement for the Sea King, the CF-18s are outdated and will need to be replaced, we are rapidly losing our tactical airlift capability. Oh yeah, they also disbanded the Airborne regiment.   They have slashed and cut everywhere in the military.   The former Governor General took one of our airplanes for her personal use and our guys got stuck longer in Afghanistan.   The next Governor General appointed is a separatist.

I really don't get why people would support them.   I mean, if what has happend so far hasn't caused people to withdraw their support, what would it take?   A similar kickback scandal in Saskatchewan a few years ago wiped out the NDP party in that province, so why isn't the same thing happening to the Liberals?

That being said, whoever you support make sure you get out to vote.   I hate when people say they couldn't be bothered to vote.   The way I see it, voting is not only a right but a responsibility.   We live in a democracy paid for in blood by those who came before us, and when it comes right down to it, it's the reason we wear the un iform, right?

As far as the Defence Critic goes, I don't think he's an idiot.  He's not an experienced politician, and I don't agree with everything he says, but that doesn't make him an idiot.  Keep in mind that part of his job as the Defence Critic is to be critical of government policy.  Perhaps sometmes he could pick his targets better, but as a member of parliament he is excellent (I live in his riding).  I've had the opportunity to chat with him in person a few times; I think he is genuinely concerned about the welfare of the CF, and I think he would do well by us.  I will be volunteering on his campaign team this time around.  I think he would be a much better defence minister than Bill Graham, but I wish General Mackenie would run again; I think he would make an outstanding Minister of Defence.


----------



## SoF (30 Nov 2005)

I want to know how long its going to take until an elected party finally pays close attention to the Canadian Forces and starts funding us as well as anyother country funds their own military. Everyone thinks there's going to be a big war soon so the next elected party needs to put some serious thought into the military budget. I hate when I speak the a civie and they say things like "oh the U.S. will always have our back" because I don't think thats 100% true.


----------



## KevinB (30 Nov 2005)

Hunter said:
			
		

> As far as the Defence Critic goes, I don't think he's an idiot.   He's not an experienced politician, and I don't agree with everything he says, but that doesn't make him an idiot.   Keep in mind that part of his job as the Defence Critic is to be critical of government policy.   Perhaps sometmes he could pick his targets better, but as a member of parliament he is excellent (I live in his riding).   I've had the opportunity to chat with him in person a few times; I think he is genuinely concerned about the welfare of the CF, and I think he would do well by us.   I will be volunteering on his campaign team this time around.   I think he would be a much better defence minister than Bill Graham, but I wish General Mackenie would run again; I think he would make an outstanding Minister of Defence.




  He is an idiot.  He squanders political capital by fighting DUMB fights - issues the CF needs and he poo-poos's it based upon the fact it is a Liberal supported idea.  The fact is the Liberals have some many half baked ideas they can be torn aprt on and he decided to go after the one good idea.  He cost the CPC a lot of votes...
 While I respect the hell of Mac -- I would not want him MD -- Foreign Affairs yes.  I dont think that retired soldiers make good MD's, they bring too much baggage.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Nov 2005)

Hunter said:
			
		

> People say Paul Martin brought us a prosperous economy.   The reality is that the Liberals benefited from the economic groundwork laid by the Mulroney government.



True, but something has to be said for a fair job of management by the Liberal Party.  Just as Ralph Klein deserves credit for doing well with economic groundwork laid by wealth from natural resources.  You can have all the money in the world and still piss it away (as the BC NDP proved), so props have to be given for effective fiscal discipline.



> As far as the Defence Critic goes, I don't think he's an idiot.   He's not an experienced politician, and I don't agree with everything he says, but that doesn't make him an idiot.



You won't be saying that if you were stationed to Goose Bay, without your Mk 19 (which he eliminated to ensure compliance with a non-existent ban on dud munitions) and wondering where your tactical transport is because he cancelled the fast-tracked purchase in favour of a 19,000 page, 15 year procurement process.... :


----------



## Hunter (30 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> True, but something has to be said for a fair job of management by the Liberal Party.   Just as Ralph Klein deserves credit for doing well with economic groundwork laid by wealth from natural resources.   You can have all the money in the world and still piss it away (as the BC NDP proved), so props have to be given for effective fiscal discipline.



You make good points about fiscal management, but what about the integrity issue?  To me that is the key issue in this election.  Like I said I have historically been a Liberal supporter but in the past 10 years I've seen just too much rot and scandal, and I just can't vote for them.  Philosophically I'm definitely a Liberal, but I see very little of Liberal principles in the current Liberal party. 



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> You won't be saying that if you were stationed to Goose Bay, without your Mk 19 (which he eliminated to ensure compliance with a non-existent ban on dud munitions) and wondering where your tactical transport is because he cancelled the fast-tracked purchase in favour of a 19,000 page, 15 year procurement process.... :



What did did he cancel?  I heard him criticize  what he saw as a rigged bid, but I don't think that he has sole authority to cancel any projects.  



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> He squanders political capital by fighting DUMB fights - issues the CF needs and he poo-poos's it based upon the fact it is a Liberal supported idea.



Heh heh that would imply that the Liberals have implemented policy to meets the CF's needs.  What I have heard him criticize is not the procurement of replacement arlift, but the fact that the bid criteria were in his opinion too narrow in scope and disqualified a number of potential bidders, and potentially handing out a massive sole-source contract.  From what I understand that's how we got the LSVW Amb (ok granted we can thank Kim Campbell for that).  And the other thing I heard him criticize is that fact that it is too little too late, and wanted the Lberals to commit more money to defence.


----------



## KevinB (30 Nov 2005)

He should be picking on the major Liberal blunders.
Admitting that we need the C130J ASAP - but point out the reason it has to go this route is
 1) Public Works is flawed
 2) This should have been done 10 years ago 
 3) We need many more items.

Fact is the 130J is the only game in town -- He attempt to smoke screen that point.  Second the Contract is PERFROMANCE BASED -- which is what all MILITARY contracts should be -- the LSVW does nto even compare -- the contract was awarded and the vehciel did not match the specifications - which where then redrawn 3 times (lower and lower and lower)

Sole Source -- come on now -- It is an aircraft -- would you rather we have 8 types of tactical airlift?  :

I am a Conservative - but I am also a realist -- this guy is not and NEEDS to go, at least out of defence.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Nov 2005)

Hunter said:
			
		

> You make good points about fiscal management, but what about the integrity issue?



I was simply responding to your complaint of giving Martin credit for the economy - integrity is another ball of hair.



> What did did he cancel?   I heard him criticize   what he saw as a rigged bid, but I don't think that he has sole authority to cancel any projects.



It ain't cancelled because he isn't a Defence Minister - but I've yet to see any good ideas come from him, so I'm assuming the worst.


----------



## McG (1 Dec 2005)

Any chance Lew MacKenzie might run for a second time?


----------



## scm77 (5 Dec 2005)

*Conservatives vow defence boost*
Dec. 4, 2005. 05:48 PM
STEPHEN THORNE
CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA - The federal Conservatives say if elected they'll boost the national defence budget "in magnitude," assuring the military a win no matter who's in after the Jan. 23 vote.

The Liberal government committed $12.8 billion to military expansion in last February's budget, which will bring the total defence budget to almost $20 billion within five years.

Defence Minister Bill Graham has dangled tantalizing toys before Canada's military - new planes, ships and vehicles. He's expanding the forces by 5,000 personnel.

But the Conservatives say they'll do even more for defence.

"Certainly the Armed Forces aren't going to get less," said the Tory defence critic, retired general Gordon O'Connor.

"There's going to be substantially more for the Armed Forces - in magnitude different."

The Tories will boost military spending significantly - O'Connor wouldn't say how much - and expand personnel by 15,000, to 75,000, said O'Connor, who drafted the party's defence platform.

All Liberal defence policies will be up for review, said O'Connor, including last spring's defence policy statement that was supposed to set the course for Canada's army, navy, air and special forces for 20 years.

"We will review everything," O'Connor said. "We have our own policy. It may support what they are doing or it may modify what they are doing."

During the 2004 election campaign, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper promised an extra $5 billion in military spending over five years, 20,000 new soldiers, new tanks, new helicopter-carrying warships and muscular transport planes.

O'Connor, who retired as the director of military requirements and later became an industry lobbyist, said airlift now is his party's No. 1 defence priority.

But it's up in the air whether the Tories will go for 16 mid-range transport planes worth nearly $5 billion, as the Liberals announced Nov. 22, or opt for fewer of those supplemented by larger, heavy-lift aircraft capable of transporting troops and equipment over vast distances.

Under a Conservative government, the Liberal procurement project may go ahead or it may be modified, O'Connor said.

"We believe in airlift," he said. "I consider airlift as the No. 1 equipment requirement for the Armed Forces.

"But an airlift solution based on our policy may be different."

O'Connor said he expects Harper will announce his defence policy before Christmas.

He said the party won't be bound by preconceived ideas. They want to look at requirements before settling on what combination of aircraft would best serve defence.

A Conservative government would also buy more Arctic utility aircraft than the Liberals plan and base some of them further north, he added.

"I believe we should have a firm deployment of new aircraft in the Arctic," he said.

With the Liberals' blessing, navy planners are already in the early stages of acquiring new support ships and transport vessels, similar to those Harper promised in last year's election campaign.

O'Connor said he strongly supports streamlined military procurement practices, but he says the Liberal method will hurt competition and favour certain products - Lockheed Martin's C-130J transport plane, for example.

Prime Minister Paul Martin has said getting what the military needs takes precedence over regional and industrial benefits.

O'Connor said he also supports what he calls the "sensible" Liberal concept of setting out requirements based on performance needs. But he said regional and industrial benefits are a must in any military procurement.

"The biggest waste of time is in the Defence Department," O'Connor said. "They're spending four years now to arrive at a document that says this is what we want."

He said defence procurements have to be directed from the top down, not the bottom up.

"Things will be better for the military" under a Conservative government, O'Connor promised.

"In funding, you're going to see a substantial difference - quite a bit more than the Liberals. We've got to get this Armed Forces out of a hole." 

Link to Article


----------



## McG (5 Dec 2005)

Gordon O'Connor seems very waffly on any position.  "Maybe we will do the same thing, or maybe we will not."


----------



## career_radio-checker (5 Dec 2005)

If they win, he'll probably be our next defences minister.


----------



## RangerRay (6 Dec 2005)

career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> If they win, he'll probably be our next defences minister.



I'm hoping that Laurie Hawn will become MoD rather than Gordon O'Connor...but I would prefer it if MGen. Mackenzie would run.  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (9 Dec 2005)

From a late yesterday evening post in this thread:  NATO to send up to 6,000 troops, including Canadians, to southern Afghanistan  
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37255/post-306352.html#msg306352

Article on CBC
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/08/layton-troops051208.html

As this is a separate spin on the same article, I'll not merge the two topics.  I'll leave this thread open for comments on NDP 'philosophy'.


----------



## silentbutdeadly (9 Dec 2005)

This will happen if you vote for the Hippies(NDP). this party is so out of her! theses would be the same people who goto Iraq to preach peace and have us all captured! Crazy i tell you Crazy!


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (9 Dec 2005)

silentbutdeadly said:
			
		

> This will happen if you vote for the Hippies(NDP). this party is so out of her! theses would be the same people who goto Iraq to preach peace and have us all captured! Crazy i tell you Crazy!



I didnt' want to be the first one to say it, but I totally agree. They are absolutely, a bunch of hippies. I can't stand them or 95% of their ideas.

"Let's cut the military budget in half and spend the savings on a big park with a giant happy face for all the kids to play in!"
^ Thats what I heard when Jack Layton spoke last year about his policy.


----------



## MacKenzie1NSH (9 Dec 2005)

so much for the army being unbaised, haha


----------



## RCD (9 Dec 2005)

I guess thats why there at the bottom of the political pile.
I refer to them as the Kitchen party


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Dec 2005)

I'm probably going to vote Conservative, again, this year - unless they run a fire-plug in Ottawa Centre.  I will not vote Liberal, not if they ran the best candidate in the world - and they are running a scummy lobbyist.  I used to vote Liberal, back in the '60s, but I stopped and I will not vote Liberal again until they select a leader who will, finally, erase the lingering vestiges of _Trudeauism_ which, I believe, may, if left to fester, unchecked, destroy our country.  I don't think I can bring myself to vote NDP - they are socio-economic illiterates, at best, "vandals" is closer to the mark.

That being said I have reservations about how the Conservatives have responded to General Hillier's attempts to rebuild, quickly, before things fall apart.  I was amused when the Tories adopted typical Liberal ward heeling tactics and promised to do _whatever it took_ for Goose Bay - arrant and dishonest nonsense but harmless political dishonest nonsense I thought at the time.  I was more dismayed when defence critic O'Connor went off the rails, in my personal opinion, this year.

I thought about O'Connor's ill-considered _critique_ of the aircraft project.  I wish he had said something like this:



> "Mr. Speaker: I rise today to applaud the Minister.  The decision to go forward with the purchase of these sorely needed aircraft is the right one.  *Well done, sir!*
> 
> But, Mr. Speaker, isn't it sad that the government must rush this purchase through what amounts to a sole source process because these airplanes - and the others the CDS wants but which the Minister's cabinet colleagues would not support - should have been purchased, through an open, competitive process years ago; they should be flying, in Canadian Forces' livery, today, Mr. Speaker.
> 
> ...



By the way: Gordon O'Connor made it up to BGen.  That's farther than I went.  I acknowledge his superior military skills and knowledge, work ethic, etc.  Gordon O'Connor, in retirement, offered himself for selection as a candidate and then for election - something I would not do, even if invited.  If, by some strange twist of events, I found myself a candidate I'm certain that Canadians would find very, very good reasons to vote for the other fellows!  I don't especially like O'Connor (I don't dislike him, either) but I think he has earned our respect - he has mine, as do all MPs.  I just hope that when (if) the Tories take power the leader/PM selects someone other than Mr. O'Connor to be defence minister.  I think DND needs a hard charging, ambitious young member to be MND - someone who will want to use the task of rebuilding our forces as a stepping stone to advance his/her own political career.


----------



## Armymedic (9 Dec 2005)

Now Now gentleman, it would behove us to restrain in calling down elected officials of our Federal Gov't.

He never said he wanted to stop us going over.He is not asking to stop our troops from working (not fighting, working like we have been) in Afghanistan persea, as much as he want the Gov't to be accountable to the people for sending us over.



> The wounding of three special forces soldiers in a battle near Kandahar this week and the more aggressive posture of Canadian troops as they prepare to return to the region en masse highlights a delicate legal point.
> 
> There has been no formal public debate â â€ or declaration of war.





> He called for an immediate halt to Canada's buildup of troops in southern Afghanistan, and he demanded that Prime Minister Paul Martin define the goals of the mission, which has been in preparation for months.
> 
> As well, Layton wants country's involvement in the war on terror debated in the House of Commons.



It's all polictical BS.
He is calling the Gov't out..wanting to be able to hold them accountable the next time a soldier is KIA'd in Afghanistan.

Is election time after all...enough hot air to keep winter from getting too cold.


----------



## MacKenzie1NSH (9 Dec 2005)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> Is election time after all...enough hot air to keep winter from getting too cold.



They use the worst things to get the votes, they don't really care, they just make it seem like they do until they are re-elected, well thats what I think anyways


----------



## ChopperHead (10 Dec 2005)

Ok well Im not sure I totaly understand the Tory platform here. are they saying that they plan on increasing the CF by 15000 - 75000 on top of what is already in the works in terms of increasing the size of the military?? This seems way to ambitious. If Im not mistaken the CF is having a hard enough time trying to increase by 5000 nevermind by 15 or 20 thousand. and if you manage to expand the forces by such an enormous amount you then have to consider where would they be stationed?? what equipment would they use?? the military would then have to build another base or 2 or 3 to accomadate this and would have to do some MAYJOR procurment because there is simply not enough, vehicles, uniforms, ammo etc etc etc to support this huge increase. So one thing leads to another here and this is very doubtful to happen. If it did you could kiss those fancy new planes good bye and those new transport ships cause there wont be enough funds to do both at the same time.

Please feel free to correct me on any of my points.


----------



## career_radio-checker (10 Dec 2005)

I agree with ya chopperhead. Total federal budget is + or - 160 Billion $$$ there are too many other social programs to give a bigger slice of the taxpayer pie. 

By the way, does anyone know when the parties are going to announce their defence policies?


----------



## canuck101 (10 Dec 2005)

i think the Tories are going talk in general terms so the liberals have no real targets to shot them on when talking about DND.


----------



## R031button (10 Dec 2005)

http://search.ndp.ca/search/search.php?ps=10&ul=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ndp.ca&ln=en&org=ndp&q=defense+platform&x=0&y=0

I think that sums up what the ndp thinks of us, or doesn;t.


----------



## Haggis (10 Dec 2005)

R031button said:
			
		

> http://search.ndp.ca/search/search.php?ps=10&ul=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ndp.ca&ln=en&org=ndp&q=defense+platform&x=0&y=0
> 
> I think that sums up what the ndp thinks of us, or doesn;t.



I tried it by spelling it "defen*c*e" and got two records, both from the last campaign.

I tried "military" and got slightly more, but still dated material.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Dec 2005)

http://www.ndp.ca/maurgannemooney/welcome


----------



## silentbutdeadly (10 Dec 2005)

I love how they add Op Desert Storm! hahah she most likely was in Pet for that the whole time! ( she provided teletype equip to Op Desert Storm for troops oversesa)!


----------



## Armymedic (10 Dec 2005)

> During Operation Desert Storm, was part of a team that provided radio teletype equipment to Canadian troops overseas



so was she the supply tech who issued it, or the operator who lent it out?


----------



## career_radio-checker (10 Dec 2005)

(sigh) here they come... the sig-op jokes.


----------



## joseph_almeida (10 Dec 2005)

One more dirty trick by the NDP. Bunch of dirtbags...But here are some links to their defence critic's ideas...
Regarding Canada/US co-operation:
http://www.billblaikie.ca/ndp.php/nationaldefence/Canadas_military_mis
Regarding defence spending:
http://www.billblaikie.ca/ndp.php/nationaldefence/NDP_Defence_Discussi
Some other defence related articles:
http://www.billblaikie.ca/ndp.php/nationaldefence


----------



## silentbutdeadly (11 Dec 2005)

This guy is a clown! like really how does us going to afghanistan in Feb have anything to do with torture! oh because anyone we capture we are going to turn over to the US! well maybe the NDP can come over and we can have a Canadian Court and we know how those things go! Maybe we should turn them over to the NDP now thats real torture! :blotto:


----------



## ChopperHead (11 Dec 2005)

(quote)Accelerate the already announced creation of a new 5000 person peacekeeping brigade(quote)

lol I find this funny how he keeps saying throughout that document peacekeeping this and peacekeeping that and UN this. Canada is at WAR we are not peacekeeping anymore  :warstory: I really dont know what else to say to this guy other then What??


----------



## silentbutdeadly (11 Dec 2005)

We all know what happens to people of Peace in places like Iraq! Next we are going to see them on the internet without there heads , said to say but stuff doesn't work over there! I guess the NDP wants to see people die in the name of peace!


----------



## MacKenzie1NSH (11 Dec 2005)

I wonder if they realize that "bombing for peace, is like f*ck*ng for virginity"
How many people need to die in order for them to realize that peace will never be totaly attained?


----------



## vangemeren (13 Dec 2005)

*Harper expected to announce defence platform
Last Updated Tue, 13 Dec 2005 05:11:47 EST
CBC News*

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper will take his federal election campaign to Trenton, Ont., on Tuesday where he is expected to introduce his party's policy on defence.

His defence platform follows his announcement Monday that a Conservative government would provide a tax credit for Canadians who enrol their children in organized hockey and other sports.

After the stop in Trenton, Harper is expected to head to Windsor in southwestern Ontario for a campaign rally....

.... [nothing to do with defence issues]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/13/Harper-defence-051213.html


----------



## Wils21 (13 Dec 2005)

Harpers pledges $1.8B boost in military spending
CTV.ca News Staff

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper made a pitch this morning to significantly boost defence spending -- part of his strategy to empower Canadian troops to become more self-reliant on missions at home and abroad. 

The Tory plan would amount to a $1.8 billion increase over projected spending by Martin's Liberals by 2010-2011. The money will go toward:

buying new strategic lift aircraft; 
creating a new airborne battalion; and 
doubling the size of Canada's Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART). 
"Our Forces stand on guard for us, both at home and around the world. So we must stand up for them," said Harper this morning from Trenton, Ont., as he continues his tour of Southeastern Ontario, a key battleground on the campaign trail. 

"The men and women who put on the uniform of Canada must have the tools they need to protect themselves and do their job."

Harper said our current lack of strategic lift capability has left Canada reliant on renting American or Russian aircraft to deploy troops on disaster, humanitarian and military operations -- including the Manitoba floods in 1997, the Quebec ice storm in 1998, the Afghanistan mission in 2002, and the South Asian tsunami relief operation in 2005.

"To be truly sovereign, we must be able to deploy our forces and equipment, where they are needed, when they are needed," said Harper. "To put it bluntly: hitchhikers may get to their destination, but they don't get to pick the route or the timing."

The minority Liberal government committed $12.8 billion to military expansion in last February's budget -- which will bring the total defence budget to almost $20 billion within five years.

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051212/elxn_tories_defence_051213


----------



## Hebridean (13 Dec 2005)

Well Harper's defence policy was announced with much fanfare. The proposals with the exception of the expansion of DART are simply policies that are already in progress.  In fact, with regard to strategic airlift, Harper delayed the tnedering process  by causing the government to fall.  For some reason, the Cosnervatives want the pricey C-17, which is not as versatile as the C-130J, although it can carry more.   To help solve Canada's airlift problem, the Government should partner with Air Canada and buy some cargo plans that could be remanded to the custody of the CF when needed, Air Canada could lease them or use them for freight (is this a carzy idea?) As well, Harper's "airborne" sounds almost exactly like the JOINT ACTION TASK FORCE(JATF) already proposed by DND, which has been discussed on this site.

 CANSOFCOM IS THE RECENTLY ANNOUNCED COMMAND WHICH WILL BRING TOGETHER EXISTING SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES UNDER A UNIFIED COMMAND AS WELL AS DEVELOP FUTURE SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES. ONE OF THESE FUTURE FORCES IS THE JOINT ACTION TASK FORCE. THIS HIGHLY TRAINED AND MOBILE BATTALION SIZED FORCE WILL SUPPORT SPECIAL OPERATIONS ACTIVITIES BOTH DOMESTICALLY AND ABROAD. 

None of these proposals address the lack of medical staff (i.e Doctors and medics) in the CF, as well as a host of other issues.  What are some your opinions on what the forces needs?  Maybe the politicians will listen to the soldiers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Dec 2005)

I think they're stuck.

The CDS is _proposing_ at least as much as the promised budget will bear - maybe a bit more.  It would be political death to propose something other than what the CS says; imagine the Liberals saying, _"So, General Hillier is wrong, is he?  Only four stars and real, recent combat experience, what has Harper got besides a slightly too large waist line?"_

Proposing something new and radical - say some of the things proposed here on army.ca - means that one must propose some radical new money and one is left open to the _aircraft carrier_, _robbing_ Medicare and American _lapdog_ counter-attacks.

He needs to get behind the CDS, saying: _"Yessir; all you asked for and a bit more - better, faster, too. Ready! Aye Ready!"_

As I see it Harper's two big problems are:

o	Hang on to the seats he has, especially in BC; and

o	Win more seats in Ontario.

Defence, it seems to me, is not a big winner (or loser, either) in BC or in the 905 belt around Toronto.  He has made his point, now it is back to 'wedge' issues he can use to pry votes away from the Liberals.


----------



## YYC1963 (13 Dec 2005)

I'm glad to see Steven Harper publically stating (within the election) what has been their platform all along. Yes, we need an Airborne unit. At 1.8$B a year, he may find he needs to spend even more as the liberals have allowed some of the CF's equipment to deteriorate too far. But the purchasing philosophy has to change, logistical vehicles need to be purchased on an annual basis, replacing the oldest 10% every year, not this bulk and clearly politically motivated purchase every 20 years nonsense. Harper must also develop a foreign policy that works. If we are to contribute in a meaningful way in far flung countries, then the CF must be given the right tools: Ro-Ro ships, C130J-30s, as well as a few C17s but more importantly a balanced force. Bring back the Airborne (1st Can Para Bn, etc. whatever we want to call it). Maintain a credible armour presence within the LdSH, RCD and 12RBC, perhaps even add 3 more battalions of regular infantry (shades of Blackwatch & Cdn Guards), we also need to maintain JTF2, there is room for both them and the Airborne. The world we live in is far cry from the 1960s and 70s when the CF was involved in Cyprus and a handful of other small UN missions. Will this be expensive? Probably, but it will be far cheaper than the alternative. As for Harper delaying tendering process by causing the government to fall, a side issue, the government needed to fall. I would not stand for propping them up merely to pass any bill or budget, otherwise the threat would be held over our heads indefinably. You need only look at any of their 1993 promises, have they kept any in 12 years? There you go. As for partnering with Air Canada? Absolutely a terrible idea given their financial track record. We need to be better prepared. Rant mode off -


----------



## Infanteer (13 Dec 2005)

...and here is the full story.  Nothing original.  

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/13/elxn-harper-military.html



> Tories would bring back airborne troops
> Last Updated Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:05:07 EST
> CBC News
> A Conservative government would boost Canada's ability to project its values around the world with more military aircraft and a new airborne battalion, Leader Stephen Harper said on Tuesday.
> ...


----------



## Chimo (13 Dec 2005)

A Conservative government would boost Canada's ability to project its values around the world with more military aircraft and a new airborne battalion, Leader Stephen Harper said on Tuesday. 

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/13/elxn-harper-military.html

I was hoping to hear an endorsement of the CDS Vision. I do not not see anything new, interesting or particularly inspiring. I am tempted to vote Liberal, as much as it would pain me, so the Transformation train doesn't get derailed. What are your thoughts?


----------



## D-n-A (13 Dec 2005)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/13/elxn-harper-military.html
Tories would bring back airborne troops
Last Updated Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:05:07 EST
CBC News

A Conservative government would boost Canada's ability to project its values around the world with more military aircraft and a new airborne battalion, Leader Stephen Harper said on Tuesday.

Harper made the announcement at Trenton, Ont., where he said the new battalion and large, strategic lift aircraft would be based. The Conservatives would also buy planes to replace the military's aging fleet of Hercules aircraft.

"Hitchhikers get to their destination, but they don't get to pick the route or the timing," he said, referring to recent missions in which the Canadian military had to rely on U.S. or Russian aircraft.

Military spending over the next five years would increase by more than $5 billion compared to the plan set out by the Liberal government, Harper said. By 2010, he said, a Conservative government would be spending $1.8 billion more per year than the Liberals.

"The Canadian Forces deserve better than the neglect that they have seen for the past 12 years," he said.

Asked about his plan to create a new airborne battalion of 650 troops stationed in Trenton, Harper said he doesn't believe there's a stigma attached to the idea of airborne troops.

The Airborne Regiment, which was based in Petawawa, was disbanded in 1995 following a 1993 deployment as peacekeepers to Somalia, during which Canadian soldiers beat a Somali teenager to death.

Harper said, "The government of the day disbanded the Airborne Regiment to avoid getting to the bottom of a particular incident."

The Conservatives also plan to double the capacity of the Disaster Assistance Response Team, which has been deployed around the world to help in relief efforts following natural disasters such as last year's tsunami.

Harper said the Conservatives believe strengthening the military is important to maintain the country's sovereignty, which he said means protecting the borders and dealing with domestic disasters. He also said, "We need strong Canadian Forces to project Canadian values abroad."

Canada would not send troops to Iraq if he were prime minister, he said.

Tuesday's announcements were only the beginning of the Conservative military spending package, he said.


_________

If we go get a new Airborne Battalion, where would the troops come from? With this new CSOR, thats already going to take a  lot of troops from the Infantry Reg'ts, aswell as CSS units.


----------



## baboon6 (13 Dec 2005)

Maybe Harper hasn't been paying attention to what's been going on in the CF and doesn't know about the CSOR.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (13 Dec 2005)

airborne regt reborn!?

that would be sweet


----------



## enfield (13 Dec 2005)

Interesting.

Airborne = Special Operations Regiment. 

The Conservatives either (a) haven't been following developments in the CF (b) have been, but want to grab some pro-military votes by using a well-known term like "Airborne" or (c) just don't care, and want to take credit for the CSOR when it does come about. 

Either way, it doesn't make much sense. 

After reading some other news sources, I have to edit:
Apparently NO ONE has been paying attention to the changes in the CF, including the new CSOR. None of the reports on Harper's announcement picked up on the CSOR/Airborne thing, or the recent Transformation drive. The usual ignorance of even basic defence matters by the nation's media and political establishment.


----------



## Pte_Martin (13 Dec 2005)

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/13/elxn-harper-military.html

To good  to be true?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (13 Dec 2005)

Aren't the Liberals doing this with the new light ranger-esq regiment?


----------



## Pte_Martin (13 Dec 2005)

Never heard anything about that is there a link or can you explain more info about that?


----------



## MacKenzie1NSH (13 Dec 2005)

If the conservatives win, we get more money, but what else would change? Or doesnt it matter?


----------



## FSTO (13 Dec 2005)

Liberals talking out of their ass (again)

Stephen Harper's Mixed-Up Military Priorities
December 13, 2005



Stephen Harper's announcement of the Conservative defence plan today demonstrates his party's mixed-up military priorities.

First, Mr. Harper said the Conservatives would double funding to the Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART).

But his party has historically dismissed DART as unnecessary expense, even opposing sending DART to provide humanitarian aid after the recent earthquake in Pakistan. His critic, Helena Guergis dismissed DART as a "photo-op" that costs 10 times more than relief provided through non-government organizations.

*Mr. Harper also announced his new plan would also include increasing heavy air lift capacity by buying larger aircraft.

Heavy airlift capacity has one purpose: the deployment of a quick response - for military or humanitarian reasons.*

It is worth noting, Stephen Harper was committed to sending Canadian troops to Iraq in March of 2003 to remove Saddam Hussein's regime by force.

As he told the Wall Street Journal in March, 2003:

"Today, the world is at war. A coalition of countries under the leadership of the U.K. and the U.S. is leading a military intervention to disarm Saddam Hussein. Yet Prime Minister Jean Chretien has left Canada outside this multilateral coalition of nations. This is a serious mistake. [...] The Canadian Alliance -- the official opposition in parliament -- supports the American and British position."

*Mr. Harper's should come clean and explain why he believes Canada needs this kind of airlift capacity: is it for military or humanitarian purposes?*

In contrast, the Liberal government is focused on supporting Canadian troops. Budget 2005 provided $12.8 billion in new money for defence - the largest increase in the last 20 years.

This delivers on our commitment to provide funding for 8,000 new troops. It will also improve operational sustainability; and fund the acquisition of new equipment and capital projects, which will go a long way in helping ensure that the Canadian military has the ability to meet the demands of a new global environment.

The Budget 2005 commitment also includes $7 billion in new equipment for the Canadian Forces including new Joint Support Ships, new Search and Rescue Aircraft, the Mobile Gun System and new Maritime Helicopters.

Furthermore, Budget 2004 provided special recognition for Canadian Forces personnel and police serving on high-risk international missions by making their income while on mission income-tax-free, at a cost of $30 million annually.

These actions are proof of the Liberal government's commitment to making sure the Canadian Forces have the money and tools they need to do the job we ask of them.

Well duh you dipshits, we have complained about the lack of heavy lift for years and now your press clowns are against them?


----------



## Popurhedoff (13 Dec 2005)

Here is a link to the news story:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2005/12/13/elxn-harper-military.html


Tories would bring back airborne regiment
Last Updated Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:23:22 EST 
CBC News
A Conservative government would boost Canada's ability to project its values around the world with more military aircraft and a new airborne battalion, Leader Stephen Harper said on Tuesday. 

Harper made the announcement at Trenton, Ont., where he said the new battalion and large strategic lift aircraft would be based. The Conservatives would also buy planes to replace the military's aging fleet of Hercules aircraft. 



INTERACTIVE: Parties & Issues 

  
Stephen Harper in Trenton, Ont., Tuesday.  
"Hitchhikers get to their destination, but they don't get to pick the route or the timing," he said, referring to recent missions in which the Canadian military had to rely on U.S. or Russian aircraft. 
Military spending over the next five years would increase by more than $5 billion compared to the plan set out by the Liberal government, Harper said. By 2010, he said, a Conservative government would be spending $1.8 billion more per year than the Liberals. 

"The Canadian Forces deserve better than the neglect that they have seen for the past 12 years," he said. 

Asked about his plan to create a new airborne battalion of 650 troops stationed in Trenton, Harper said he doesn't believe there's a stigma attached to the idea of airborne troops. 


ARCHIVES: The Somalia Affair

The Airborne Regiment, which was based in Petawawa, was disbanded in 1995 following a 1993 deployment as peacekeepers to Somalia, during which Canadian soldiers beat a Somali teenager to death. 

Harper said, "The government of the day disbanded the Airborne Regiment to avoid getting to the bottom of a particular incident." 

The Conservatives also plan to double the capacity of the Disaster Assistance Response Team, which has been deployed around the world to help in relief efforts following natural disasters such as last year's tsunami and the earthquake this fall in Pakistan. 

Critics have complained in the past that DART, an ad hoc team of about 200 Canadian Forces staff who can ship out quickly to conduct emergency relief operations for up to 40 days, is expensive to deploy. 

Some have suggested the money would be better spent given to non-governmental organizations. 


INDEPTH: DART

Conservative MP Helena Guergis said in October that sending DART to Pakistan would "waste millions on a photo-op instead of disaster relief." 

Harper said the Conservatives believe strengthening the military is important to maintain the country's sovereignty, which he said means protecting the borders and dealing with domestic disasters. He also said, "We need strong Canadian Forces to project Canadian values abroad." 

Canada would not send troops to Iraq if he were prime minister, he said. 

Tuesday's announcements were only the beginning of the Conservative military spending package, he said.


----------



## dorionhawk (13 Dec 2005)

Signed on long ago but never posted.  I am presently the President of Carleton-Mississippi Mills Conservative Association, yes Gordon O'Connor's riding, I bring this up because some of you will if I do not.
..*.I am speaking only for myself and not Gordon O'Connor nor the Conservative Party or the Carleton-Mississippi Mills Conservative Association.
*
The real story : The Conservatives WANT to rebuild our forces now ,not because the election rug was pulled from our feet as what happened to the Liberals. For Canada to remain a sovereign nation and to have a say at the NATO or U.N. table we must be able to put something concrete on the table.

 I will give you my biased opinion. Gordon is a great M.P.and will be a great Defense Minister, ask any of his constituents and they will tell you he is always available and very down to earth.
As Gordon has stated on t.v., the New Airborne regiment will have the capability to be our first line of defense in case of a terrorist attack but first of all be our front line troops to handle national emergencies across this large land mass  we call home.
 Over the next few weeks Stephen Harper and Gordon O'Connor will reveal the remainder of the CPC 's
plan for our armed forces. Gordon and many others have put a lot of  time and effort in coming up with a strategy for our men and women in uniform. I truly believe that this plan will help us rebuild our military and give Canada a voice on the world's political stage once again. 
    J.P. Dorion


----------



## Infanteer (13 Dec 2005)

dorionhawk said:
			
		

> I will give you my biased opinion. Gordon is a great M.P.and will be a great Defense Minister, ask any of his constituents and they will tell you he is always available and very down to earth.



Mr Dorion, thanks for posting.  Has the Conservative Party been paying attention to what the CF has been doing for the past year?  From what I've read, it sounds like you guys have missed the races or at least started out 10 paces behind - the Canadian Special Operations Regiment has already been stood up with important command and staffing positions being filled and a building plan instituted to get this "first line of defence" up off the ground in the next year.  It is a definite boost to Canada's Special Operations capability and fills much (if not all) of the capability set that the Conservative Party is promising.

Here is the discussion on the topic if you and Mr O'Connor wish to catch up with things:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35793.0.html

This isn't me bickering about politics; don't worry, the Liberals lost my vote with handguns.  But the CDS and his guys get the credit for this, and the previous Liberal government gets a thumbs up for letting General Hillier do his thing.  I hope to see two things to encourage my somewhat dim view of the Conservative Defence platform:

1)   The remainder of the plan for our armed forces that is somewhat more imaginative then two issues ("airborne" and "transport planes") that are already being addressed.

2)   A thumbs up by the Conservative Party to the CDS Rick Hillier who has given the CF a breath of fresh air.  You guys don't need to rewrite the playbook, you've got the right guy in play already.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## Armymedic (14 Dec 2005)

dorionhawk,
One of those things that the previous gov't got right it that we need more troops. The plan to recruit 5000 new troops is a good start, in replacing the 5000 we are about to lose over the next few yrs. We need more, 50,000 + isn't cutting it. We need our 3 army brigades returned to full strength, ships completely manned and in that we will also ensure tasks like training and recruiting will be filled as well.


----------



## Slim (14 Dec 2005)

I hope the Conservatives will listen to this when I say

PLEASE LEAVE THE CDS WHERE HE IS! HE'S DOING THE JOB THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AND KNOWS WHAT HE'S ABOUT!!

Slim


----------



## McG (14 Dec 2005)

Hebridean said:
			
		

> ... with regard to strategic airlift, Harper delayed the tendering process   by causing the government to fall.


Actually, I don't believe the Liberals were persuing strategic airlift.   They did have a plan to replace our old Hercs and give us better tactical airlift (even if we do employ it strategically at times).

My first question to the Conservatives would be: would the Conservative plan to buy strategic airlift be complementary to replacing our tactical airlift, or would it be instead of replacing our tactical airlift.   (See the Army.ca thread that compares the two capabilities: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37145.0.html)

What is the position of the Conservative Party on the many transformation initiatives already started under the CDS?

Like many, I too would like to know if the Canadian Parachute Regiment would be in addition to the Canadian Special Operations Regiment, or in place of the CSOR.   (See the Army.ca thread on the CSOR: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35793.0.html)



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> Stephen Harper's Mixed-Up Military Priorities
> December 13, 2005


FSTO, can you provide a link or source for this IAW the conduct guidelines  ?


----------



## Joe Blow (14 Dec 2005)

> Like many, I too would like to know if the Canadian Parachute Regiment would be in addition to the Canadian Special Operations Regiment, or in place of the CSOR.



I like what I heard tonight but was really curious about that point.  What does this promise mean for the army exactly?  I understand the CSOR will be a company from 3 RCR to begin with and will 'grow with the army' from there.  Would the new Airborne Regiment just be an amalgamation of the the airborne brigades?  If so, where is the advantage?  (Seriously ..I really wouldn't know.  Anyone?  Arguments for or against..?)  and what of the rest of the army ..the same but without jump battalions?

(As an aside...  The Tories really need a new communications manager.  Saying "Airborne Regiment" outloud was a stupid mistake.  Whatever good was contained in the announcement today it was overshadowed right away by that utterance.  I'm afraid that all that Joe Cdn heard was bla bla bla "Airborne Regiment" ...followed the immediate thought: wtf!?  I mean really what's the association there in everyones mind?  The CBC even showed the old picture of the that fellow torturing the Somali.  Really.  Just stupid.  Worse even than the "mini-carrier" utterance in the last election.)


----------



## McG (14 Dec 2005)

Joe,
We do not have airborne brigades or jump battalions.  We have three parachute companies (one in each of the light infantry battalions).  As far as the tactical/stratigic debate on how we should structure our parachute capability, I refer you to this:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22233/post-308759.html#msg308759


----------



## Joe Blow (14 Dec 2005)

Oh yeah: "Parachute Companies"  OK, that's embarrassing.  Thanks for the clear up and the link.


----------



## McG (14 Dec 2005)

PViddy said:
			
		

> Buying at least three new strategic lift aircraft;
> ...
> 
> 
> ...


Funny that they talk of new strategic lift aircraft, yet the roll described is of tactical airlift.


----------



## duotang (14 Dec 2005)

Is this not a re-hash, at least in part, of the same porkbarrelling that Gordo et al. were promising to Goose Bay just a few months ago?

   Petey MacKay press release

   CBC news article

   Conservative party press release

Is there a CF-18 contract that can be shuffled around the country somewhere?

_*"A Tory government would base the new transport aircraft, their crews, as well as the airborne battalion, in Trenton, Harper promised. 

The expansion of DART in nearby Kingston would also provide an economic boost to Eastern Ontario, where the Conservatives hope for a political breakthrough."*_

Holy crap!


----------



## brihard (14 Dec 2005)

More rifles and bayonets is nice, but what we really need is more combat service support. We do not posess the logistical capability to properly sustain the deployable force structure that we have today. Look at how brutal it was back in '92 / '93 when we had two battlegroups deployed, in Bosnia and Croatia/Serbia (about the time of the Medak Pocket battles). I've got family in army logistics, and I've heard some horror stories of how tough it was to support the troops back then, and apparenlty it's even wrose now. The multinational coalition in Afghanistan is a logistical nightmare because no nation wants to be responsible for the support infrastructure. If we can barely sustain things on our end with only a single task force deployed, then the concept of adding more infantry units becomes very notional as they would not be sustainable or deployable.

Don't get me wrong- I think a new para battallion would be excellent, or a strengthening of existing combat arms components, but any new defence allocation MUST be disproportionately budgeted towards combat service support and administration, or else any new initiatives in the combat arms will be useless. If we can barely sustain 10% of our combat capable force deployed, what use is adding more of them? We need to get abck to the point where we can sustain at least two if not three battallion sized battlegroups for several rotos, while still being able to keep one of them deployed and supported once the main conflict is over and the force goes to a lower profile. As it stands we can barely keep a single battallion out of our current nine deployed overseas.

Promising more rifles on the ground is sexier politically, but we need the ability to support them, and the politicians are losing track fo that.


----------



## Gobsmacked (14 Dec 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> Actually, I don't believe the Liberals were persuing strategic airlift.  They did have a plan to replace our old Hercs and give us better tactical airlift (even if we do employ it strategically at times).
> 
> My first question to the Conservatives would be: would the Conservative plan to buy strategic airlift be complementary to replacing our tactical airlift, or would it be instead of replacing our tactical airlift.  (See the Army.ca thread that compares the two capabilities: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37145.0.html)
> 
> FSTO, can you provide a link or source for this IAW the conduct guidelines  ?



MCG,

Check the various news articles on 'Spotlight on Military News',
The CPC want strategic airlift On top of the recently announced Tactical Airlift.

'Rant On'

As previously noted, good ole, cross the floor and take a PWGSC Cabinet post Fiberal Scott Brison (yeah Belinda got away with it too - its just UnEthical   :tsktsk: ) noted in the 22nd Nov 05 Conference that _"we will be posting the performance specifications for 30 days . . . that will probably be in another ten days or so."_
Well, lets see - The 24 Nov 2005 _'Backgrounder'_ noted _'Letter of Interest and Qualification - January 2006'_.  *In just 2 days they changed their tune* from '10 or so' *to '38 days or so'.*
Yet, the election was called on Nov 28, THEREFORE, THE ELECTION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH DELAYING THE HERC ACQUISITION.

Meanwhile, pricing information provided by DGAEPM to a Parliamentary Inquiry to Directorate Material Group Management in late-October 2002 notes _"Assuming that 19 CC-130 E-model aircraft [not including the 4 H-73s] would be replaced with 19 CC-130 J-model aircraft, the estimated replacement cost is approximately C$2.5B"_.
Or, estimate of C$2.1B CF acquisition cost for just 16 CC-130Js without Outsize cargo capability

As FSTO noted,
http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?id=11250
_Stephen Harper's Mixed-Up Military Priorities__
December 13, 2005
Stephen Harper's announcement of the Conservative defence plan today demonstrates his party's mixed-up military priorities.
*Mr. Harper also announced his new plan would also include increasing heavy air lift capacity by buying larger aircraft.  Heavy airlift capacity has one purpose: the deployment of a quick response â â€œ for military or humanitarian reasons.  Mr. Harper's should come clean and explain why he believes Canada needs this kind of airlift capacity: is it for military or humanitarian purposes?*_

a.  OMG - I can't believe the Liberals actually released this as a news release.  

As previously said, Well DUH - Heavy Airlift capability is for BOTH Military 
(ie. Vanguard elements or Electronically sensitive items such as ADATS - which are in short supply [34], or limited number Valuable Aviation assets like CH-47F Chinook or attack helicopters - you would not want any short supply/limited number assets sitting in the hold of a Commercial Ro-Ro cargo ship for 2-3 weeks when they could be used for trg or operational needs)
Or Humanitarian (DART, CH-47s, CH-146 Griffons - although not in Hot/High climates like AStan) purposes.

As previously noted, (Wouldn't want to actually be able to pull our weight in the world and provide rapid disaster relief - you know for the Quake that will Never Never Ever hit BC,   :dontpanic:  , the floods in Winnipeg or Ice Storms in Que/Ont that NEVER EVER require us to Beg a lift from our US allies.)

Plus, We should not keep funneling money - Hundreds of US$ Millions (nearly US$200M already - nearly the cost of a C-17) - to Foreign Russian/Ukranian air carriers & USAF.
And, I'm from partial Ukranian Heritage myself - but RENTING An-124-100 or IL-76 AT OUTRAGEOUS RATES is the Wrong Route to proceed!  Especially when they are ageing and supply is limited.
ie. Monopoly on Market.  When crisis hits - Everyone needs to use them all at the same time.


Meanwhile, the Fiberals preferred choice for Strategic Airlift is An-124-100 through the NATO SALIS MoU (of which i have an unedited copy).  *Unfortunately, the implications of the Ruslan-SALIS Monopoly do not bode well for timely/adequate CF access.*

A) Per sec 3.1.2 - Assured NATO/EU Access for up to 6x An-124-100 for 20 consecutive days, upon consent of all SB (steering board) members per sec 6.4, for minimum 800 hrs per year - no later than six days after SB notification.  Therefore, Canada would be responsible for 7.4925% of 800 hrs = 59.94 hrs yearly for Assured Access.

B) Per sec's 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 - Simultaneous activation of up to 2 National AR (Activation Rights) - at minimum 100 hrs per nation - (based on Annex B % rounded up to nearest whole #) for all participating nations would require simultaneous provision of 19x An-124-100s.
(Yet Volga-Dnepr & Antonov combined have total: 17x An-124-100, Plus An-225)
Although, as per sec 3.1.8, this is limited to a mere 6 cumulative National AR per calendar year.  Meanwhile, as per sec's 3.1.7 and 6.3, this may be supplanted by purchased Supplementary AR, although if all nations simultaneously require utilization of maximum 2 or 1 National/Supplementary AR (rounded up for lesser participating nations) then available Ruslan-SALIS airlift is inadequate.

C) Per sec's 3.1.4 and 6.4 - Canada's access to adequate strategic airlift would be dependent on the European-oriented priorities of the SALIS participants.
This access could be denied/restricted if one nation had national motives to deny access to another, such as seen by recent denial of French airspace to UK airlift to Iraq - thus translating into denial of sec 3.1.2 Assurred Access for major national deployments, which require Unanimous SB agreement, if a SALIS partner disagreed with such deployment.
Both the EAC (European Airlift Center), and the planned co-located SALCC (Strategic Air Lift Co-ordination Cell) are located at Air Base Endhoven and have a primarily NATO-Europe/EU focus.
Meanwhile, both Finland and Sweden have indicated their intentions to join SALIS which would further strain overtaxed An-124-100 resources.

D) Also per sec 3.1.9 - *The 72hr availability stipulation would be Insufficient to meet DND's FSA SOR 48hr availability window in respect to national deployments in response to a natural disaster* (such as a major BC earthquake or another Winnipeg Flood) *or a northern Canada MAJAID* (MAjor AIr Disater)*!*

E) In addition to the yearly Assured Access financial commitment required by Canada (59.94 hrs) - per sec 3.1.2, Canada would also be responsible for 150 YFH per sec's 3.2.1 and 7.2 - defined at Annex C.
Plus, yearly admin Fee as per sec's 5.2 and 7.1 - whether the capability is used or Not.  

F) Per sec 12, Future Withdrawl from SALIS once Contract signed upon RfP acceptance - should an integral national strategic airlift capability be acquired down the road - Canada would remain financially liable for 1yr after giving notice.  

G)   Per 3.1.2 and Annex C, the YFH cost to NATO/EU would be based on 800 hrs + 1,859 hrs = 2,659 hrs.
As per early-2005 article, Elmar Rauch - a German attorney representing Ruslan-SALIS estimated the contract would be worth some Euro70M per year.  Therefore, some Euro26,326 per YFH.


Additionally, as STEPHEN THORNE noted March 14, 2005
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/03/14/pf-960716.html
_*Military could face skyrocketing lease prices*_
NATO's Strategic Airlift Interim Solution (SALIS) project is finding that its goal of obtaining assured access to one of the world's largest transport planes, the Russian-built Antonov, may be prohibitively expensive.
Two companies, Volga-Dnepr of Russia and Antonov Design Bureau of Ukraine, control three-quarters of the world's 23 Antonovs [Russia's Polet has the other 6 - tied to Russian AF/Gov't]. They have formed a western-based agent, Ruslan-SALIS, to bid on the NATO contract.
_"That in effect created a monopoly situation,"_ says a Canadian Forces brief obtained by CP. _"*The price they demanded for assured access* was extremely high.  It *is equivalent to paying out all of the annual potential revenue of each of the six *_*(required) aircraft, which amounts to a full-time lease.*_"_
On top of the retainer, the bidders want Canada and other NATO countries using the planes to pay the full market rate for each hour flown.
_"*In essence, we pay twice for the aircraft - once when the full potential revenue is paid out for assured access, and once more for each hour flown,*"_ says the brief.
_"Under these terms, *each flying hour could cost up to four times what a fair-priced market would ask.*"_
[Recall that the 'fair market' charged DND US$880K per DART flight in early-2005, therefore 4x = *~Cdn$4.14M (US$3.52M) per flight*.   ]
The operators also submitted a list of circumstances that would allow them to default on the assured access terms of the contract without having to pay the heavy penalties that nations want included as insurance.
_"The aircraft is approaching the end of its designed useful life of 24,000 flying hours,"_ the brief says.
 :brickwall:


*In DND's own words* (i'm not going to list the specific ATI docs I've taken these out of because you folks can pay for your own ATI searches):
Considering Canada is: _"The Second Largest Country in the World _(and)_ Isolated from Most of the World by 3 Oceans, _(while)_ Timely Implementation of Canada's Foreign Policy Requires Assured Access to Means of Global Deployment.
*Canada requires Strategic deployability*: To be able to respond to domestic needs [Natural disasters, timely deployment of JTF-2 outside Central Canada _(due to)_ National security incidents, deployment of submarine rescue equipment from East Coast to the West Coast, deployment of major equipment to the Arctic in response to a major air disaster], To be able to respond to foreign policy driven requirements [UN and NATO missions - ie. Afghanistan, Deployment of the DART]. 

_(Additionally,)_ Paris-Moscow by AIR = 2,495 Km _(vs)_ *Toronto-Vancouver by AIR = 3,366 Km*. _(*Thats roughly equivalent to 3,000nm transatlantic distances.*  And reiterating the obvious, Charter or)_ *Lease An-124 from Antonov - Not a long-term solution to Canada's requirements,* _(while)_ *Operating lease of C-17s Expensive {US$36M/yr per A/C} - Not a long-term solution to Canada's requirements.*  Many NATO nations like Canada are currently experiencing a deficiency in strategic airlift."_

Yet, the Fiberals don't think we should own strategic airlift - they seem 'hunky dory' with the above limitations - that have been repeatedly pointed out to them.
With the Europeans, on the other hand, common sense seems to have finally prevailed - after years of prevarication, as a majority of Western-NATO/WEU members (especially any G-7 nations) have committed to a total of 180 A400M from approx 2010 onwards.  Even South Africa (eight), Malaysia (3) and Chile (3-4) seem to have realized the importance of acquiring at least a basic (APC capable) Outsize strategic airlift capability - and most of these nations are closer to where we deploy overseas than we are!

Plus, as WEU notes _"the chartering of foreign aircraft will *ALWAYS BE NECESSARY* . . . to have the capacity now lacking until the arrival of the A400M and the few heavy-lift aircraft that will remain necessary beyond the year 2010._ (Meanwhile,)_ only Great Britain has four C-17A Globemasters, while for sending forces under the Helsinki headline goal, twenty would be needed."_


b.  Well,  actually - yes I can believe the Fiberals would release that News Release load of bull 
- it smacks of the CRASS ANTI-MILITARY BIAS OF THE LAST ELECTION!
[ie. say 'whatever it takes' to get re-elected.]
When the Conservatives said they were thinking along the lines of:
Helicopter Assault Ships or 'Hybrid Carriers' (what was the CPC thinking?) - 
*REMEMBER THE OUTRAGEOUS FIBERAL CARRIER ADS!*   :tsktsk:
They made it sound like the Conservatives wanted to procure Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carriers for 'American Style' Offensive operations.   :rofl:  [Anyone notice an 'Anti-Yank' theme here?]  :
(Funny how the Helicopter/Assault Carrier idea is now leaking out of DND - Obviously DND thought is was a Good idea!)

Hopefully the CPC will listen to my idea of:
Two US-type LMSR (Large, Medium Speed, Roll-on/Roll-off) ships would be much more Capable
[cargo capacity of 300,000 Sq ft - equiv to 400x C-17 payloads - enough to store and Securely carry enough equipment for a TSSU - incl. MBTs - with a range of some 12,000 nm at 24 knots.
Remember the 'GTS Katie' Incident - held hostage 10% of Army vehicles incl. Leopard 1 tanks], 
and - very Important to our Personnel Starved Navy - would not require the Extensive crews that a LPH/LPD would, not to mention that such a capability is academic as Canadian Navy No Longer has any Naval Gunfire Support capability to allow opposed landings, we would still need a friendly port.
And could Not be Spun by the Fiberals into acquisition of a Carrier.  

'Rant Off'


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Dec 2005)

"Mr. Harper's [sic] should come clean and explain why he believes Canada needs this kind of airlift capacity: is it for military or humanitarian purposes?"

It must have been "Bring your kid to work and let him/her do your job for a day" today at liberal.ca.

"General purpose combat capability" has been a mantra for years.  Almost any reasonably well-informed person covering the defence beat would know it.  The false dilemma would be embarrassing, assuming the author to be knowledgeable.  A correct phrasing would be "for military *and* humanitarian purposes".  Everyone who has spent practically five minutes in the CF knows that eventually equipment might be used for purposes other than originally envisioned.  Tank trainers, anyone?


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Dec 2005)

Regarding "airborne battalions": I suggest the CPC get someone knowledgeable about light infantry and how they are delivered to the battle to write up the talking points.  What are needed - and what I believe are already in the works and should be accounted for in any "new" proposals - are proficient and prepared light infantry with commensurately equipped and mobile combat support and service support elements to ensure they don't get stuck out on a limb.  Whether a particular deployment is airborne, airmobile, heliborne, civvy air, ro-ro, over the beach, or any other exotic category shouldn't matter and shouldn't be a feature of the unit name, role, or colour of hats and jackets.

It would also help to identify when and whose ideas are being repackaged.  If the Liberals - with a glorious history of fulfilling campaign promises pertinent to DND/CF at great benefit to taxpayers - are repackaging others' ideas, then identify the root instead of looking like yet another layer of giftwrap.


----------



## MacKenzie1NSH (14 Dec 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> It would also help to identify when and whose ideas are being repackaged.   If the Liberals - with a glorious history of fulfilling campaign promises pertinent to DND/CF at great benefit to taxpayers - are repackaging others' ideas, then identify the root instead of looking like yet another layer of giftwrap.



Thats pretty ironic, cause thats what one of vetrans said at a Highlander Ass. Meeting the other night, and hoe they have been doing it for years


----------



## FSTO (16 Dec 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> Actually, I don't believe the Liberals were persuing strategic airlift.  They did have a plan to replace our old Hercs and give us better tactical airlift (even if we do employ it strategically at times).
> 
> My first question to the Conservatives would be: would the Conservative plan to buy strategic airlift be complementary to replacing our tactical airlift, or would it be instead of replacing our tactical airlift.  (See the Army.ca thread that compares the two capabilities: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37145.0.html)
> 
> ...




Here you go.

http://liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?id=11250


----------



## MacKenzie1NSH (16 Dec 2005)

Does anyone know where the conservitives plan on getting the extra funding from to support the military as they propose to do? Is it from taxes, or public programs?


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Dec 2005)

>Does anyone know where the conservitives plan on getting the extra funding from to support the military as they propose to do? Is it from taxes, or public programs?

Neither.  They're going to steal it from Liberal-friendly ad agencies.


----------



## rifleman (16 Dec 2005)

Remember one thing... Campaign Promises do not cost anything.


----------



## duotang (17 Dec 2005)

rifleman said:
			
		

> Remember one thing... Campaign Promises do not cost anything.



And cheques you write with your mouth, usually bounce.


----------



## duotang (17 Dec 2005)

Roll out the pork-barrel?



> Conservatives promise more planes, troops for 8 Wing
> 
> It was a defence policy campaign platform tailor-made for 8-Wing/ CFB Trenton.
> 
> ...


----------



## darmil (18 Dec 2005)

E for effort but still not enough.


----------



## McG (19 Dec 2005)

> The purchase of strategic heavy lift aircraft, and the creation of a 650 strong airborne battalion all going to CFB Trenton, if the Conservatives are elected Jan. 23.


That is a big infrastructure requirement.


----------



## MacKenzie1NSH (19 Dec 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> That is a big infrastructure requirement.


Even more tax payers dollars going, going, gone, if they win...which I highly doubt they will


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Dec 2005)

>And cheques you write with your mouth, usually bounce.

No kidding.  If I had a list of Liberal promises on the even-numbered pages of a book, and details of how the promises were fulfilled on the odd-numbered pages, I can't imagine needing to reproduce more than half the book if anyone else wanted a copy.  Based on past behaviour, nothing the Liberals say from the dropping of the writ to Voting Day should be believed.


----------



## MacKenzie1NSH (20 Dec 2005)

who is it that is making some promise that won't even come into effect in this term, like it won't even start to develop till 2010, liberals I think


----------



## The Gues-|- (22 Dec 2005)

PUBLICATION: 	National Post
DATE: 	2005.12.21
EDITION: 	National
SECTION: 	Editorials
PAGE: 	A16
SOURCE: 	National Post
WORD COUNT: 	744
Time to rearm


Canadian nationalists will undoubtedly be outraged to learn that the American nuclear submarine USS Charlotte cruised under our Arctic ice cap last month. They have no one to blame but themselves. For 40 years now, the selfsame politicians and intellectuals who have demanded Canadian firewalls against American cultural and economic incursions have simultaneously urged the steady weakening of the Canadian military, the most crucial means by which a nation may assert and defend its sovereignty. Our Armed Forces even lack the necessary listening posts to hear what is going on under our polar seas, much less the planes and Arctic ground patrols that could turn back any unwelcome visitors. 

If we are to be fully sovereign, we must dramatically expand and modernize our military along the lines proposed by Stephen Harper's Conservatives. 

The critical element in the Conservatives' military platform, released last Tuesday near CFB Trenton, Ont., is not the extra $5.3-billion in defence spending it pledges over the next five years -- it is the clear vision it contains for Canada's Armed Forces and their role in the world. The extra money is essential, but defining a realistic set of missions for our Forces is more important still. 

One of the first of these roles would be fulfilling our duty, along with our allies, in maintaining global security. But next should be beefing up our frontier defences to ensure no one -- not even those same allies -- can transverse our territory without our knowledge or permission. When the Prime Minister, Paul Martin, insists he will not be "dictated to," his words ring hollow since it has been Liberal governments that have done the most damage to our ability to project our territorial sovereignty. 

The Tory plan would raise the overall defence budget from $14-billion this year to nearly $25-billion annually five years from now. The Liberals too have promised to increase the national defence budget, but have committed $3- to $5-billion less. The Conservatives' commitment is closer to the figure recommended by the Auditor General three years ago to ensure Canada's army, air force and navy remain capable of both peacekeeping and war missions around the world. This figure would also be more in keeping with the defence expenditures of other industrialized nations our size. 

The Tories can probably also be trusted to keep their defence-spending promises. Over the past 10 years, the current government has pledged new search-and-rescue helicopters, mobile cannons, heavy cargo planes, amphibious assault ships and more, yet all have died procurement deaths in endless technical reviews and defence reform analyses. 

What is best about the Conservative plan, though, is its pledge to re-establish an airborne unit and to redesign our military for the current range of threats around the world. Our last major defence re-think was begun when the Soviet Union -- not terrorism -- was seen as the biggest danger to world security. Disbanding the Airborne more than a decade ago was a mistake. Made in response to embarrassing hazing videos that came to light and the unit's brutal, racist actions in Somalia in the early 1990s, the decision left Canada without a rapid response unit capable of being dropped into a hot spot with a few days notice. Given the nature of modern military threats -- far-flung and quickly developing -- the elimination of the airborne left a huge gap in our military capability. 

We need a rapid response unit that has better training than our regular army units, but that is not a full special-ops regiment, such as Joint Task Force 2. It must be fully self-sufficient, so it can be "wheels up" in 48 to 72 hours. Together, the Conservatives' promises of new equipment and manpower would make such a unit viable. 

But we also need the capability to defend Canada's territory and territorial waters -- we need to increase our squadron of long-range patrol aircraft, build a small fleet of ice-breaking patrol vessels, raise and equip Arctic infantry patrols and, perhaps, even buy a submarine that can sail about under the ice and keep away sneaky foreign subs. 

We need to take our national defence -- abroad and at home -- much more seriously. The Conservative plan goes further toward doing just that. 


- http://server09.densan.ca/archivenews/051221/npt/051221c2.htm

(Edited by Moderator to post source at start of article.)


----------



## career_radio-checker (22 Dec 2005)

Ok, I thought it was about time this information was posted. Here are the links to the defence policy of each major party:

The Liberals
http://www.liberal.ca/issue_e.aspx?itype=62#dap

The Conservatives.... eeek they have to improve on this one.
http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2326/31916#

The NDP
http://www.ndp.ca/page/2463

:clown:The Green Party :clown:
http://www.greenparty.ca/foreign_policy.html~&MMN_position=135:128.html

The Marijuana Party of Canada
http://www.marijuanaparty.com/article.php3?id_article=198 (riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight  :)

The communist party of canada
http://www.communist-party.ca/  (hit 'issues' and scroll down to 'analysis')


----------



## Dog (22 Dec 2005)

yup.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Dec 2005)

Thoughts on this?

Good news - No Goose Bay Battalion.

Bad news - some perenially chilled sailors and loggies.



> Harper would boost Arctic military presenceThursday, December 22, 2005 Posted at 11:04 AM EST
> 
> Canadian Press and Globe and Mail Update
> 
> ...


----------



## Armymedic (22 Dec 2005)

Its the good ole "step up or shut up" ref soveriegnty.

The Conservatives are stepping up by making sure we have a military presence throught Canada, not just in the south. 

Posting to Iquliut, anyone?

I don't like the idea of G O'Connor becoming MND though...esp after his JTF2 comments.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Dec 2005)

It's about time the subject of Arctic Sovereignity came up.  It has been a subject that I think has been overlooked far too long by both DND and the political parties.  I like the idea of buying three icebreakers.  I'm not certain that the fulltime basing of them in Iqaluit would actually fly, though.  The expense in putting say, 500 families, up North would be horrific.  Not to mention just how hard it would be to develop a dockyard infrastructure to support ships and do routine maintenance at -40C.  On the other hand, the locals could see a lot in the way of jobs and skills development out of it.

Bottom line- this is the start of a useful and long overdue debate on what role we need to play in the Arctic, I hope.

Looks like the Conservatives drive the agenda again today.  Are the Liberals asleep, or just saving everything up for a a post-Christmas orgy of "Look-how-scary-Harper-and-his-hidden-agenda-are-we-are-the-saviors-of-Canada-so-vote-for-us" speeches?

Cheers


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Dec 2005)

are there 500 sailors laying around doing nothing right now?  Or will this also have to be recruit driven.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Dec 2005)

> are there 500 sailors laying around doing nothing right now?  Or will this also have to be recruit driven.



Build the ships and they will come... I have no fear of that.

The point, I think, is that we should do the jobs that need doing, not just the ones we currently have the the bodies to do.


----------



## Armymedic (22 Dec 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> are there 500 sailors laying around doing nothing right now?   Or will this also have to be recruit driven.



no more then there are 700 soldiers to fill JATF, or another 500 to fill the Airborne unit he wants to make.


----------



## Hansol (22 Dec 2005)

i agree 100%, but that article sounds like it was written by a conservative party speech-writer crony...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Dec 2005)

agreed on both counts but as mentioned before, without the troops all the saber rattling in the world won't change things, and until the recruit process is revamped and sped up there won't be the troops to fill these new roles.


----------



## enfield (22 Dec 2005)

Is it even possible to cover the entire Arctic region? Is it feasible to attempt to monitor all Canadian borders, perimeter, and coast?

The US spent 40 years driving subs around Soviet waters, and rarely (if ever) got caught... I'm not sure how we're supposed to do a better job at coastal/arctic security than the USSR. 

This sounds more like a good sound bite then an actual sound defence policy. I agree we need to boost our Arctic presence, but I don't Harper has a grasp on the realities of monitoring millions of square kilometers of ice and ocean. 
And he's still talking about resurrecting the Airborne, which is already done. Ugh. At least they don't want it in Gander anymore. 

Although, in the last election Martin kept talking about silly things like a "peace keeping brigade of 5,000" - which disappeared and somehow morphed into a recruiting drive across the board. So, I have faith that whatever silly things Harper talks about will also disappear when the election is over and reality sinks in.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Dec 2005)

Actually I think it is possible to "Monitor" the arctic insofar as it is not too difficult to monitor air approaches (by radar which we don't have but should) and the access to the Northwest Passage at a limited number of Choke Points (Hudson Strait and Lancaster Sound - north and south of Baffin and Amundsen Gulf north of Tuktoyuktuk - possibly McClure Strait as well)  Those three or four gaps represent the principle entrances to the NW Passage - Cambridge Bay and Resolute are on two internal choke points through which all ships (and subs) must pass.  Other waters are apparently too shallow and the ice is too deep and permanent to be navigable at all.  

Together with Nares Strait up by Alert controlling these few points, together with radar and air support it would be possible to "control" the Arctic.

Read Arctic Imperative: Is Canada Losing the North? - John Honderich, University of Toronto Press, 1987

Jeez, its only 18 years later and we're still talking not doing.


----------



## Pencil Tech (22 Dec 2005)

When talking about arctic sovereignty I don't think it's really necessary to be able to monitor ALL of the Arctic Ocean. I think Harper's proposal is a good one because what we do need is to demonstrate very clearly that those are our waters, and I have to admit that it seems to me that all the elements to his proposal do that. The threat to our sovereignty is not really primarily military but political and economic, as the northwest passage becomes more and more navigable. We've got to use it, or we'll lose it. In international law, if you can't demonstrate sovereignty over your territory you're on thin ice, pardon the expression.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Dec 2005)

As someone once said, every country has an army â â€ either its own or somebody else's. If we cannot protect the front door to North America, the Americans feel they have to, and I don't blame them. I don't look at it as an "Invasion of Sovereignty" more like a "Neighbourhood Watch" that we are to unskilled/ cheap/ ill equipped/ lazy to participate in. Nope, don't blame them a bit, and as long as it's them and not someone else surfacing there, so be it.


----------



## greydak (22 Dec 2005)

I watched the news today, and it seemed like his intent was to use the airborne as a SAR more then a first strike unit?


----------



## dorionhawk (22 Dec 2005)

Standing up for Canada...


Letter sent to the Defence MinisterThe Hon. W. Graham, MP, P.C., D.U., Q.C.

Minister of National Defence

101 Colonel By Drive

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K2



Thursday, December 22nd, 2005 



Dear Minister Graham, 



On Monday Canadians learned of reports that that the American nuclear submarine USS Charlotte traveled through Canadian Arctic waters last month. The media reported the government refused to say whether it gave permission for this voyage. 



Currently five nations possess nuclear submarines: the US, China, Russia, Great Britain and France. There are many indications that all of them have traversed throughout our Arctic waters. It is almost certain that many of them did not seek our permission. We have territorial disputes with the United States in three areas, at the bottom of the Alaska panhandle, in the Beaufort Sea, and with respect to the Northwest Passage. We also have territorial disputes with Russia on the Continental shelf and with Denmark over Hans Island. Our sovereignty is being challenged and will continue to be challenged as other nations covet our vast resources.



In a press conference on Monday, I called on your government to answer several questions concerning this potential violation of our sovereignty.  I have yet to receive a response from you or any government official. So today I am writing to put these questions directly to you:



Was the Government of Canada aware of this particular voyage into Canadian territorial waters? 
If your government was aware of this voyage, did it grant permission for it to occur? 
If your government did not grant such permission, what specific actions have you or your government taken to protest this apparent violation of Canadian sovereignty? 
Is the government aware of other unauthorized foreign naval voyages that may have occurred in Canadian territorial waters without the permission or knowledge of the Canadian government? 
What concrete measures are in your government's plan to prevent such unauthorized incursions into Canadian territorial waters in the future? 


Sovereignty must be enforced to be credible with respect to international law. It is not good enough to say we are sovereign, we must demonstrate our sovereignty. I and all Canadians would like to know the specifics of your plan to defend our northern sovereignty. 



I look forward to your response. 





Gordon O'Connor, M.P.

Official Opposition Critic for National Defence


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Dec 2005)

Dorionhawk, please give us your reaction to this thread...
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37742/post-312302.html#msg312302


----------



## Gunnerlove (22 Dec 2005)

I still can't figure the Conservatives out. They are pissy when the Liberals take to long to buy something ( Cyclone) and are pissy when they act in haste (M-777). They bitch about the subs being a waste of money yet they have no real alternative (forget nukes, not going to happen kids). 

After a decade in the forces I believe we are on the upswing as far as training and equipment go. As a military we also seem to have more support from government and the public than I can ever remember. Now why would I want to vote for a group that wanted Canada to invade Iraq?


----------



## dorionhawk (22 Dec 2005)

Short memory... from Warren Kinsella's web site....


In that vein, I wanted to point out that Paul Martin told the Laurier Club last night (check out CTV's extensive coverage and the video links here, about eleven minutes in) that, if Stephen Harper was a majority government Prime Minister, we would be at war in Iraq. 
That might be true. But it's also true that, had he won a majority, Paul Martin would have done the same damn thing: 

"¢	"I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible." - (Paul Martin, North Bay Nugget, April 30, 2003).

"¢	"I don't think there is any doubt, if there ever was... that [Saddam Hussein] does have weapons of mass destruction. ...he had lied and that he is continuing to lie." - (Paul Martin, Calgary Herald, March 7, 2003)

"¢	"The problem is...we know well that there is proliferation of nuclear weapons and that many of the weapons that Saddam Hussein had, for example, we do not know where they are, so that means the terrorists have access to all that." - (Paul Martin, Globe and Mail, May 11, 2004)
"¢	"Once the war in Iraq began, Canada was far from neutral." - (Paul Martin, CTV News, May 21, 2004)

"I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible." Get that? Paul Martin said that. Not Harper or Layton or Duceppe. Paul Martin. Get to war, and get to war fast. Said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, too.
On this Remembrance Day, it's useful to remember - as Paul Martin cravenly seeks to depict his opponent as pro-war - that, once upon a time, Paul Martin favoured George W. Bush's illegal war in Iraq, too.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Dec 2005)

dorionhawk,

If your here to stump for the Conservatives, you better lay out your party's platform. We will have little time for someone that just comes here to attack without providing alternatives.

Anyone can surf for canned comments, what merits do you provide.


----------



## ChopperHead (24 Dec 2005)

recceguy said:
			
		

> As someone once said, every country has an army â â€ either its own or somebody else's. If we cannot protect the front door to North America, the Americans feel they have to, and I don't blame them. I don't look at it as an "Invasion of Sovereignty" more like a "Neighbourhood Watch" that we are to unskilled/ cheap/ ill equipped/ lazy to participate in. Nope, don't blame them a bit, and as long as it's them and not someone else surfacing there, so be it.



I agree. we can't defend the artic heck we can barley moniter it right now. the US knows this and so does everyone else. so if we cant protect our borders then the US is not going to sit around and let something happen. If theoretically someone were to land on Canadian soil we would 1) not know about it for awile/if ever
2) not be able to do anything about it. exept give a warning or send some Natives on snowmachines. Not that the rangers arnt skilled or anything but up against  a proffesional army they are not much help other then recon.


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Dec 2005)

Paul Martin said that Canada needs to join the war effort in Iraq ? Once he was PM he could have followed through on that statement, but he didnt. Paul Martin offered more money to the CF but it was to be spread out over 5 years as a result the badly needed infusion of money was diluted. The CF needs a budget of $20b a year - minimum. The Navy needs money. The Air Force needs to start replacing its inventory of aircraft. The Army needs to modernize to be able to link with the US digital network. Above all I would like to see two brigade's with 6 infantry battalions .The Army needs Chinook helos and some type of robust attack helo. The CF needs to obtain mini UAV's that can be operated at the company/battalion level. The list goes on.


----------



## enfield (24 Dec 2005)

I still haven't seen any proof it's possible to monitor the entire Far North in a meaningful way. The US can't control all of its borders, and the USSR was never able to control it's entire Far North and coastline. Too much land and water. 

The more I see Conservative defence plans, the more it becomes obvious they have a General from the 1970's in charge. The CPC seems to be aiming slightly off the mark on a lot of things, and is way out of line on a few others. He rails against JTF2, but looks to acquire big fleets of ships and planes, and re-invent the Airborne/CSOR. I had hoped with the appointment of General Hillier as CDS we had escaped the rash of poor senior officers of the 1980/early 90's, but one has returned to haunt us. 



			
				ChopperHead said:
			
		

> 2) not be able to do anything about it. exept give a warning or send some Natives on snowmachines. Not that the rangers arnt skilled or anything but up against  a proffesional army they are not much help other then recon.



I don't know. How many armies can seriouly operate in the Far North? True, the Rangers are not a true combat force, but I wouldn't under-estimate them - especially when attached to a regular unit. Good luck to anyone who tries to fight North of 60 without them. 

Besides, say China does put a division of paratroopers down on Baffin Island. So what?


----------



## MacKenzie1NSH (24 Dec 2005)

the rangers only observe and report anyways don't they? They have no real authority to do anything do they?


----------



## Dare (25 Dec 2005)

Enfield said:
			
		

> Besides, say China does put a division of paratroopers down on Baffin Island. So what?


You could probably have just summed up your arguement with that statement.

Some people care about Canadian sovereignty.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Dec 2005)

Having done exercises in -40 C weather, I'd be happy to simply let an enemy sit in Baffin Island - they most likely wouldn't last long.  Winter warfare is extremely attritive on forces that don't have a high degree of specialized training and equipment; I've seen this first hand.


----------



## karl28 (25 Dec 2005)

I think that we should protect the north with a stronger presence .  Its our back door and  if its not protected it could eventually bite us in the back side one day .


----------



## enfield (26 Dec 2005)

Dare said:
			
		

> You could probably have just summed up your arguement with that statement.
> 
> Some people care about Canadian sovereignty.





			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Having done exercises in -40 C weather, I'd be happy to simply let an enemy sit in Baffin Island - they most likely wouldn't last long.  Winter warfare is extremely attritive on forces that don't have a high degree of specialized training and equipment; I've seen this first hand.



Exactly, Infanteer. 
China/Cuba/North Korea/Luxembourg lands in the high North. Give them a week, and then go pick up the bodies. 

War cannot be waged at those latitudes, the conditions are simply too severe. No one tries to maneuvre serious forces that far North - if nothing else, there's nothing worth fighting over that far north. Warfare in higher latitudes - such as Russia 41-45, Finland 1939-40 - is highly seasonal, and farther North it's just impossible to fight.

I care a great deal about Canadian sovereignty, but I am realistic about the ability of a nation of 32 million people to hermetically seal a country with 202,080km of coastline, 891, 162 sq km of territorial waters, and 9 million square km of land, not too mention the borders with the US. Like I said earlier - the Soviet Union was fanatic about protecting itself and sealing its borders, and it never managed it. Despite massive resources, they were never successful in keeping US subs out of their waters. Canada has a small defence budget and little patience for military matters - I don't see a need to waste our money and times chasing Los Angeles-class submarines around under the ice. 

I am far less concerned with minor symbolic acts - like US subs in the Arctic - then I am with important, immediate, in-theatre issues. The fact recent Canadian wounded in Afghanistan have had to be medevac'd by American helicopters is more embarassing, to me, than a boat up north. 
Canadian sovereignty is being decided in Afghanistan as much as it is in Ellesmere Island.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Dec 2005)

> I am far less concerned with minor symbolic acts - like US subs in the Arctic - then I am with important, immediate, in-theatre issues. The fact recent Canadian wounded in Afghanistan have had to be medevac'd by American helicopters is more embarassing, to me, than a boat up north.
> Canadian sovereignty is being decided in Afghanistan as much as it is in Ellesmere Island.



Seen, but to me, the point is not that we should build a coastal defence bunker every 500 m throughout the arctic or have a dogsled-mounted infantry battalion on each and every island north of 60.  The point is that we need to be able to regularily survey the territory we have have up there by air/sea/land forces.  We need to have at least a "token" permanent military presence in the North that can be rapidly reinforced up to (platoon/company/Battalion?- someone needs to sit down and do the estimate).  I would not argue that we need to be prepared to fight a Corps-sized, conventional war north of 60- we just need to be REGULARILY north of 60 with some level of credible armed force.  To do that, it does begin to imply a certain bill for airlift (ahh- the strategic versus tactical lift debate continues), for icebreakers, for sensors (above and below the water) and infrastructure to house both permanent and surge forces.  I don't think that is too much to pay, considering the considerable mineral, natural and cultural wealth the North possesses.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Dec 2005)

I'm with SKTO on this one.

It isn't the necessity of repelling corps and hordes.  Its worse than that.  They are relatively easy to detect and repel.

It's more the case of governing an uninhabited area.  If we don't exercise authority in the area then it leaves the area open for exploitation by others which may or may not be backed by a foreign government.  Some of you might remember that the flashpoint for the Falklands War was actually a bunch of Argentinians harvesting "resources" (scrap metal) from a British island (South Georgia) in the middle of no-place.

The Danes and Norwegians are fishing high up in Baffin Bay without supervision.  The Danes are pushing their boundary claims at Hans Island.  The Russians are pushing out along the Lermontsov ridge onto "our side" of the North Pole.  The Americans are pushing into the Beaufort Sea.

What is happening is that the entire area is becoming a Border Zone,  a zone of instability, a contested area, that is likely to be exploited by not just us "locals" but by all-comers.  It's not corps we need to be worried about its "scrap metal" dealers, fishing, gas, mining and shipping companies, potentially backed by foreign governments and possibly protected by private security firms that could outmatch your average RCMP Constable or CF Ranger.  That's the immediate threat that needs to be checked.

Just as SKTO says - you don't need a massive force permanently dug in with forts and dog patrols to get that job done.  His shopping list will do just fine.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Dec 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> His shopping list will do just fine.



...and there is the kicker; the shopping list.  I'm with Enfield in saying that we need to be realistic about the shopping list.  I have a big shopping list for Canada as well, but as was pointed out - we need to sort out priorities and the tip of the spear needs priorities.  The high arctic is not where the tip needs to go.  To me, there is no immanent threat in the North - I'm more interested in seeing crucial defence dollars go to ensuring our guys have a better chance of surviving contact and killing Mujihadeen (these guys will fly planes into Toronto, not Alert) than knowing how many seals some Dane grabbed off our island.

Do I believe in strong Northern sovereignty measures?  Yes.  I'd like to see it as part of a comprehensive Homeland Defence plan.  But I ain't going to chicken-little the issue (not accusing anyone here of doing so) at the expense of more pressing issues because our guys won't be fighting and dying on Hans Island....


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Dec 2005)

The "Tip of the Spear" needs to be able to go any place it is needed.  One place it might be needed is the Arctic.  The Arctic is of considerably more interest to Canucks than Afghanistan, Darfur, Rwanda or Bosnia.  There is a developing need in the Arctic.  The international need is no more nor less than it ever was.  A Canadian Battalion is not going to secure global peace and prosperity.  Its not even going to secure regional peace and prosperity.  On the other hand that same battalion available domestically can secure our northern Borders for a fair ways into the future.

If the spear can be fashioned to work in our own backyard, it will be useable anyplace else and be welcome.  This will give the "spear" exercise so that it can be effectively wielded in defence of our domestic interests.

2,3,4 Sub Units, Units, Formations - I don't know, you lot are the professionals - capable of operating in the arctic, with one on stand-by or exercise and the rest in training or on an "international exercise" seems to me should be a primary focus of the CF.

International operations are always discretionary.  Domestic operations, no matter how improbable, are only discretionary in so far as you are williing to concede the battle before you fight it.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Dec 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The Arctic is of considerably more interest to Canucks than Afghanistan, Darfur, Rwanda or Bosnia.



I'd argue that it isn't - we fight over ground, not for it.  It's all about people and a fishing trawler in the high arctic isn't a grave threat to our people.  Threats to international stability, proliferating WMD and metastasizing insurgent/terrorist organizations that are willing to kill us whenever the chance arises are the real threat.  Once Al Qa'ida starts setting up in Iqaluit, I'll be convinced that Northern Sovereignty is an immediate security concern.



> 2,3,4 Sub Units, Units, Formations - I don't know, you lot are the professionals - capable of operating in the arctic, with one on stand-by or exercise and the rest in training or on an "international exercise" seems to me should be a primary focus of the CF.



We already have this capability.  SKT's list was for primarily naval, air and sensory assets.  My only argument is that we have to be careful not to set up a boogyman that specializes CANADACOM over CEFCOM.  If we can do both, great - but my priority lies at the wall with the above mentioned threats, not the backyard.  As Enfield stated earlier, I have a bigger issue with the fact that we rely on others to medevac our troops overseas then I do with an errant US sub doing the grand tour of the Arctic....



> International operations are always discretionary.



Was Afghanistan really discretionary after 9/11?  International operations have the potential to be just as decisive as domestic operations.


----------



## Old Sweat (26 Dec 2005)

Infanteer, for whatever it is worth, I agree with you completely. Much of the fixation on the north over the past two or three decades was to find something to justify what we used to call Defence of Canada operations and the Canus Operations Plan. A lot of effort was spent worrying about the non-existent threat of lodgements and that may have been the only means that allowed us to retain any robust airborne capability at all.

Showing the flag, surveillance and reconnaissance is a different matter and must of that can be done with various sensor sytems and the use of the Rangers, who after all have a real stake in proctecting their homeland. The last thing we want to do is to tie up troops exercising effective national control over everything in snowmobile range of a few settlements.


----------



## ChopperHead (27 Dec 2005)

Well I do agree that we need to prioratise what we need to spend what little defense budgt there is but IMO I think there is more chance of getting equipment and whatever else as part of the protection of the Arctic because when It comes right down to it the average Canadian is not really concerned with whats going on in Afganistan or Rwanada or Bosnia or wherever else. But when it comes to our own lands more people tend to care and want something done about it. For simple soverienty issuses or for future economic gain from that region. Canadians are more likely to speak up about something like that then in Afganistan and the Government will listen because they want votes and if thats what Canadians wwnt then they will get it because then that party can say look what we did. If that same party said we bought Tanks or something anyone outside the military really doesnt care much.


----------



## DG-41 (27 Dec 2005)

> The more I see Conservative defence plans, the more it becomes obvious they have a General from the 1970's in charge.



I'd go farther than that - they've got somebody whose personal ox was gored by the Grits, and whose agenda is to reverse some (all?) of the military decisions made by the Grits in the last decade-plus.

I don't know if it is all this general, or a behind the scenes advisor, or a combination, or what - but it is pretty clear to me that the real defence agenda coming out of the Alliance (they ain't the Tories folks, no matter how much rebranding they do) is purely a reversal of all things Liberal.

Well, like it or not, the Grits have been doing well by us lately. That's almost certainly Hillier at work, not Liberal benevolance and wisdom... but whatever. What matters is that there have been distinct moves in the last year or two to reverse the damage done to the CF over the last two decades.

I keep having "Challenge and Commitment" flashbacks... and having lived through that, I can tell you that the first thing that'll happen in an Alliance government is that every single Liberal-initiated programme will be cancelled - no matter the worth or necessity of it - and every single person in a senior leadership role will be punted out in favour of Alliance cronies.

...just like what happened when the real Tories were punted out in the early 90s. It's how Canadian politics is done.

Well I for one like the direction we've been moving in lately. I like the missions we've been getting. I like the support we've been getting. And I REALLY like that we have leadership that doesn't just hop whenever Washington whispers "frog".

As far as I'm concerned, this really boils down to a choice between General Hillier and General  O'Connor. Who do you want to see running the CF?

DG


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Dec 2005)

And here was me thinking that the military served the government.

General Hillier seems to be a good leader, from this outsider's vantage point. He has done a lot of good stuff.  I hope he continues to do so.

General (ret'd) O'Connor has been reported as saying things I disagree with vehemently.  Apparently he is at odds with some of the reports himself.  I don't know the truth of the matter.

Regardless, I haven't heard anything from the Conservatives (And no they are not just the Alliance DG) that is mutually exclusive with either Hillier's or the Liberal's position.  Even Martin is reduced to accusing them of just playing catch up.  If there was a difference wouldn't we be hearing about it?   Wasn't it the Conservatives that promised strategic sealift in the last campaign only to be ridiculed by the Liberals and then ultimately to have them agree that it was needed?  Didn't Martin last time round say the solution was strategic airlift?   Harper has incorporated it into his defence budget proposal.  Martin hasn't got around to it yet.  Like much of what Martin talks about.

I do know that it is going to take a lot more than what has been offered to convince me to do anything other than vote the Liberals out.


----------



## RL206 (27 Dec 2005)

By KEVIN WARD 

Tuesday, December 27, 2005 Posted at 6:37 PM EST

Canadian Press

 Courtenay, B.C. — Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says major cities across the country should be given a regular army presence by creating territorial defence units to help deal with emergencies in urban areas.

At a campaign stop Tuesday on Vancouver Island, Mr. Harper said such units would be composed of 100 regular troops and 400 or more reservists if the Tories win the Jan. 23 federal election.

“A large number of our cities have no military presence,” he said after announcing plans to beef up the military's capabilities in the West.

Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, the Toronto area and other major metropolitan areas would be in line for territorial defence units whose troops would be available to help with emergencies and deal with conflict overseas, Mr. Harper said.

“This is a full military presence,” he added. “Obviously we would anticipate that its domestic need would be in case of disaster ... but obviously they would be military forces that could be forward deployed in the event of more serious military conflict elsewhere.”

The announcement was part of a promise to restore the military's presence in B.C. and across Western Canada. Since CFB Chilliwack was closed in the mid-1990s, Mr. Harper noted that B.C. hasn't had any army units on its soil.

“British Columbia is now the only region of the country without a regular army presence,” he said, promising a rapid reaction battalion of 650 troops to be stationed at nearby CFB Comox.

Mr. Harper tied the boost in military spending in the West to protecting Canada's sovereignty, as he recently did in promising icebreakers to help surveillance of Arctic waters.

“Canada's West Coast is vital to our national sovereignty,” he said. “ British Columbia is our window on Asia and the Pacific. Our Pacific waters are home to vital trade routes, fishing grounds and resource wealth.”

In addition to stationing a battalion at Comox, Mr. Harper said the Conservatives would:

— Increase Pacific navy personnel by about 500 regulars.

— Buy a new transport ship.

— Upgrade existing frigates and submarines.

— Embark on a program to replace Canada's destroyers and frigates.

— Boost the air force's surveillance capability by purchasing unmanned aerial vehicles, as well as upgrading existing Aurora surveillance aircraft.

Mr. Harper has promised to increase defence spending by $5.3-billion more than is currently planned to be spent from 2006-2011


----------



## buzgo (27 Dec 2005)

Another 650 troops? On top of the new 'Airborne' unit he's promising for Trenton, and the CSOR that is being stood up now? Where in the hell are all of the troops going to come from? All the promised budget increases will get spent on new housing and pay for all the new troops!


----------



## Armymedic (27 Dec 2005)

I like the idea of posting a Bn to Comox...I'd go there.

His concept is sound, its in the details that his troubles are going to come.

We'll need many more the 5000 recruits in the next couple yrs to fill out all we have now, let alone what he's promising.


----------



## PPCLI MCpl (27 Dec 2005)

I would recommend posting a battalion of Patricia's to Winnipeg.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Dec 2005)

PPCLI MCpl said:
			
		

> I would recommend posting a battalion of Patricia's to Winnipeg.



That would be a great idea.... 

As for Comox, I think it would be an excellent spot for a LIB.  Mountainous terrain, temperate rainforest, littoral environments all nearby; two major urban centers less than 100 klicks away (Vancouver/Victoria); access to Ft Lewis, WA (training opportunities with 2/75 and 1SFG) and our Pacific Fleet (can you say SCTF?); and, as a bonus, my family is 30 minutes up the road and the fishing is great! 

I'd go in a heartbeat.


----------



## Gunner (27 Dec 2005)

Pure pork barrell politics placing a Bn in Comox. Same as the 100 man Territorial Defence Units spread across the country.  If you want to do something worthwhile, use these PYs to organize a 600 man Heavy Urban Search and Rescue unit capable of domestic and international employment.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Dec 2005)

How about a SBS in Summerside PEI?


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Dec 2005)

Gunner:

Is it pork barrel politics?  Or is it supplying regular PYs to make the existing militia forces more viable in domestic operations?

Don't I remember hearing that the Conservatives whnted to increase end strength to 75,000 regs in the last election?

I'm still waiting to see what the final picture looks like.  Not just on defence but on platform complete.  

I am hoping I will be pleasantly surprised.  But disapointment isn't new.


----------



## Gunner (28 Dec 2005)

> Is it pork barrel politics?  Or is it supplying regular PYs to make the existing militia forces more viable in domestic operations?



Comox and Goose Bay are pork barrel politics.  PYs are one thing, I am more concerned about the infrastructure costs to create these new bases. We suffered (some would say we still suffer) from a huge amount of infrastructure that sucks up a huge amount of money every year (PILT, heating, etc).  I would much prefer to see 100's of millions of dollars sunk into higher priority items rather than making sure every province has a small amount of soldiers to do ... something.  The something isn't articulated.  As far as making the existing militia force more viable for domestic operations, I am not convinced that it would be worthwhile (nor do I believe reserves want to be relegated to a national survival role). Emergency management is a provincial responsibilty and "domestic operations" are very difficult to plan for other than have a fairly generic plan to respond to potential provincial requirements.  Reservists have a role to play in domestic operations but it will continue to be on an "as available" basis vice as a "first response" capability.  I could support a highly trained HUSAR unit capable of mountain ops, search and rescue, etc as a national resource.  I think they should be in a centralized location vice scattered across the country in areas with a limited domestic operations future (ie Regina, Winnipeg, Calgary etc).


----------



## Infanteer (28 Dec 2005)

As much as I think a Pacific Coast army presence is important for Canada, I'm inclined to agree with Gunner's argument of unneeded pork.  I'll put new Army bases down low on the list with a nice new undress uniform that we harp about here.

The Ruxted Editorial challenged the Conservatives to put some intellectual horsepower into an alternative policy for Canadian Defence - I see that piece of advice went unheeded and we get this dogshit....


----------



## ArmyRick (28 Dec 2005)

With all the ideas Mr Harper wants to implement (I am pro conservative by the way) will not be feasible. IMO By the time his ideas get started we will be at another election.


----------



## buzgo (28 Dec 2005)

IMHO his 'ideas' started back in the 1970's

 :-\


----------



## Gunner (28 Dec 2005)

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051227/harper_veterans_051228/20051228?s_name=election2006&no_ads=



> Tories would give vets their due, Harper vows
> Updated Wed. Dec. 28 2005 2:53 PM ET
> 
> CTV.ca News Staff
> ...


----------



## MPIKE (28 Dec 2005)

Well nice sentiment..I can't say that I'm all impressed now that we have lost so many. At least they made it a platform issue.


----------



## Dog (28 Dec 2005)

I agree... it's about time they make it an issue. 

It's a damn shame that so many of our veterans were forgotten after they served.


----------



## joseph_almeida (28 Dec 2005)

I am favouring the Conservatives more and more each passing day.....


----------



## ImanIdiot (28 Dec 2005)

Almeida said:
			
		

> I am favouring the Conservatives more and more each passing day.....



Yeah, and every time I think the same thing, their defense critic opens his mouth and awes us with another pearl of wisdom. 

The Conservatives are making a lot of promises right now, specifically aimed at us. An Airborne unit in Trenton, a  650 member rapid reaction battalion in BC, etc etc. They are jingling their proverbial car keys, and we, their noble golden retrievers, all want to go for a car ride  

I don't know how many votes this is going to get them in the long run, as IMO the majority of Canadians would rather cut their daycare expenses by $50 a month(as an example of personal priorities. That's not on any parties' platform, as far as I know) than see Canadian troops doing something to better the world.


----------



## joseph_almeida (28 Dec 2005)

With the Conservatives funding backing up Mr. Hilliers plans we would be unstoppable...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Dec 2005)

Well if Harper does half of what he says, it'll be twice as much as the lieberals have done in twelve years.


----------



## enfield (29 Dec 2005)

I'd agree with a Army presence in BC... but not at an air force base on an island. Chilliwack seems like an obvious choice. Rectifying DND's fascination with incredibly horrible real estate (Wainwright, Shilo...) would be a positive step for training and retention. 

Territorial defence units? Yikes.... so we have a dozen Territorial Defence Units (of some miscenallenous branch/trade/arm) across Canada, each sucking up 100 Reg F troops and 400 Reservists... doing what? They won't be qualified to deploy overseas, being in such small units spread out. I hope to god the new role for the army isn't urban civilian search and rescue or snow shovelling - which is what these half-assed battalions sound like to me. 

I don't think we need to get too excited about all this - about the details anyways. First of all, they're just election promises - and we know what they're worth. Second, in the last election Paul Martin made big news about his promise of a "5,000-strong peacekeeping brigade". We lambasted that obviously inane proprosal for a couple dozen pages on here. And in the end? We have a 5,000 person recruiting surge, a CSOR, a battle group on its way too combat in Afghanistan, and some aircraft on the way. 

I'm going to try to think positively, and believe that the Conservatives have ideas for a huge, far better funded military with a broader and more active role. The details, I hope, will be hashed out by General Hillier when/if he sits down with Harper and O'Connor.


----------



## ArmyRick (29 Dec 2005)

I see this as a win or big win situation.

This particular liberal government is backing the military. (Compared to Chretein's rein of error)

If this conservative party gets in, then we will get even more.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Dec 2005)

I can see it as being a great saviour of the Armd Reserve Units.  Post in a Sqn of Reg Force Armd to these centers with their equipment and then go into a Training cycle.  They would have the people to maintain and train their vehicles and equipment from the start, and through their training cycle, will start to include the local Reserve Armd soldiers who would then have more ready access to the vehicles and equipment.  Vehicles and Equipment would not deteriorate due to lack of PY in maint.  This would build up a number of trained (ie. Coyote) Armd Reservists who could be slotted into positions for Tours.  Some Reg Armd soldiers could have the opportunity to serve in a major city, as opposed to Petawawa.  It would alleviate current problems in the Reg Regts of only having equip for 1/3 of their strength.  (Of course, more Equipment would have to be purchased to implement this plan.)

Perhaps as the time progresses, more Crses such as SQ, Trades and PLQ could be more effectively run in the Major centers, due to a strong Training Cadre being developed in line with this.


----------



## Gunner (29 Dec 2005)

George, the focus of these cadres is not training reservists for overseas missions.  They will be focussed on dom ops.  Mind you, maybe a surveillance screen of the border to prevent US Handguns from entering Canada may be in our future....


----------



## George Wallace (29 Dec 2005)

I wasn't looking at them as Training Cadres per say, but as a Unit, that would be able to incorporate Reservists into its normal Training Cycle over time and in effect bring up the calibre of training available to Reservists in its sphere of influence.  That would give it and the CF trained Reservist that would be able to augment that unit or another in Dom Ops or Tours.  

It may even permit the increase in numbers of Class A and B callouts in that locality.  It would allow Reservists to augment and fill out that Reg Force Unit, or effectively double its size, and at the same time keep the Reservists up to speed on current equipment.
Currently many Reservists, due to civie job issues, can not get away for courses at Regular Force  Bases or the various Training Areas.  With a Regular Force Unit in the Major centers, that problem may be overcome.  Even if there is one opening on a Crse of twenty, it is still a step in the right direction, and an oportunity to bring up the skills of the Reserves.


----------



## Gunner (29 Dec 2005)

George, you may be right as the Conservatives announcement is short on explanation as to what these soldiers (Reg or Res) will be doing in the major centres.  I don't believe it is the stand up of the new units (or augmenting of preexisting ones) will have any focus on training in traditional combat skills as there isn't any equipment to do so under the current Whole Fleet Management plan.  As I mentioned in another thread, they will probably be focussed on first responder style tasks (NBCD, mass casualty scenarios, etc).  In essence they would be superimposed on preexisiting municipal and provincial plans.  Time will tell...


----------



## George Wallace (29 Dec 2005)

Perhaps this is an opportunity for us to develop a coherent idea as to what this should develop as.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Dec 2005)

Even if they just had current comms, off-road vehicles (not Suburbans - something a bit more rugged and capable of being used tactically and logistically) along with small arms and light pintle mounted weapons wouldn't they be capable of both useful training and also be able to supply useful back-up for dom-ops?

My sense of watching Katrina and other disasters is that the first requirements are a secure base of operations, a body of people capable of conducting a useful recce, communications and transportation.   All things that a military unit can supply without compromising its military functions - in fact all necessary to their own operations.   Katrina also demonstrated the need for a disciplined security force in some instances.  

I don't think we need to go back to the rope and ladder days of the 50s for the militia to be able to contribute meaningfully in a crisis.  It can still organize and train to function militarily, tactically.

IMHO.


----------



## nowhere_man (30 Dec 2005)

Sorry i didnt have time to read all your posts (school work) but i was looking on the sites and found the defence statements for the Liberals and Conservatives 
This Is the Liberals http://www.liberal.ca/issue_e.aspx?itype=62#dap

And The Conservatives  http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2326/31916     there wasnt alot on the defence statement that i could find for the Conseavative's .But from what i read the Liberals is the same that they have been promising for years. Or what they've alread done.


----------



## youravatar (31 Dec 2005)

Has anyone picked up today's Ottawa Citizen? Defence got a HUGE spot in the saturday observer and a front page margin. Basically it says Con/Lib it doesnt matter; the CF is getting a big boost hands down.


----------



## buzgo (3 Jan 2006)

Harper is at again, 650 more troops to be stationed in BAGOTVILLE.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Render&c=Article&cid=1136242214744&call_pageid=968332188774

OTTAWA—Paul Martin has failed to accomplish much as Prime Minister because he erratically flits from "priority" to "priority," charges Conservative Leader Stephen Harper.

Buoyed by public opinion polls showing him in a statistical dead heat with Martin, Harper began the second half of the federal election campaign yesterday by painting himself as a decisive and focused leader.

His Liberal rival, in contrast, has "56 top priorities," which essentially means he has none, the Conservative leader said.

"This is one of the Martin government's greatest weaknesses," he told about 150 raucous supporters at a rally in Ottawa.

To underscore that point, the Conservatives distributed a list of 56 Martin quotes from the past three years where he cited everything from health care in Burkina Faso and peace in Sri Lanka to protecting the Arctic and funding public transit as a "priority."

"You can't be all things to all people at every moment. You simply cannot allow yourself to be pulled in 56 different directions," the Tory leader said.

Because Martin appears so easily distracted by whatever issue pops up, Harper said the federal government is in a state of paralysis.

"Compared to ... Trudeau, Mulroney, Diefenbaker, Pearson little, very little, very, very little" has been accomplished, he said, referring to former Liberal and Tory prime ministers.

Unlike the Liberals, Harper said a Conservative government would have just five key priorities if elected Jan. 23:

#
Cutting the GST immediately from 7 per cent to 6 per cent and then down to 5 per cent within five years.

#
Cracking down on crime.

#
Passing the Federal Accountability Act to clean up government.

#
Working with the provinces to establish a patient wait-times guarantee.

#
Helping parents with $1,200 annual baby bonus cheques for children under the age of six to be put toward child care.

"These are all things we intend to move on aggressively," Harper said. "Obviously some of them would face more resistance in a minority Parliament than a majority Parliament." While Harper played down the polls showing the Conservatives could replace the Liberals at the helm of a minority government, he said he understood why his message was starting to resonate with voters.

"We've led the way in this campaign because we've led with ideas and ideas are what Canadians want," he said. "They're tired of slurs, scandals and spin. They want real solutions to the challenges of ordinary working people." *Later in the day, Harper used a gathering of about 100 Tories in Jonquière, Que., to announce a new 650-member rapid-reaction army battalion would be stationed at CFB Bagotville.*

Three weeks ago, he announced a similar unit, designed to respond to emergencies and disasters at home and abroad, would also be based at CFB Trenton.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jan 2006)

The quote of 650 doesn't make sense. 





> Later in the day, Harper used a gathering of about 100 Tories in Jonquière, Que., to announce a new 650-member rapid-reaction army battalion would be stationed at CFB Bagotville.


If it were just a number, I would have expected it to be beefing up of the Air Force elements there, but a 650 Rapid Reaction Bn just doesn't make much sense.  There seems to be a major fixation of stationing large numbers of Combat Arms troops into Air Force Bases that don't have the infrastructure, nor the room to house them.


----------



## buzgo (3 Jan 2006)

I was listening to CBC this morning as well, and they ran his speech. He also said that they would increase the infrastructure of Bagotville to be able to support this new Battalion.

So what is the running total now?

Comox - 650
Trenton - 650
Bagotville - 650
Iqaliut - 500

Hopefully the CSOR wouldn't be stopped if the 'Conservatives' win - 800

So there are 3250 troops right there! Add in the 100 reg force pers in each major city... figure another 600 troops there... Will they disperse the brigades to do this?


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jan 2006)

What's with all these "rapid reaction battalions"?  Does the Brigade in Valcartier not count for anything; how will sticking one in Bagotville help?!?  Since Mr Harper is handing these things out like candy, I wish he'd define what the heck they are....


----------



## NL_engineer (3 Jan 2006)

Take a look at the Conservative Defence policy, looks good on paper; but I bet it will be say good bye too the C7 A2, all other new kit, along with a pay reduction.

Just my 2 cents


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jan 2006)

I'd like to know how you figure in a Pay 'Reduction'.


----------



## DG-41 (3 Jan 2006)

> Does the Brigade in Valcartier not count for anything; how will sticking one in Bagotville help?!?



It's already at the airport that way.

I'm just not sure where it would train.....

DG


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Jan 2006)

At least it answer's Duey's question about what the intentions for Quebec are.

There is some sort of symmetry working here - one battalion per existing brigade, moved to airheads and the airborne capability at the Trenton Airhead?  Comox, Bagotville, Goose Bay and Trenton?  Not an entirely novel idea to Infanteer and others on this board, who, if I recall correctly, have considered something of the same in the past.  

Perhaps the intention is to move the LIBs out to these bases.  Perhaps the intention is to form new battalions.  Perhaps the CSOR will be the airborne battalion.  Perhaps it will be in addition.  Perhaps the extra PYs will come from the 75,000 regular strength that the CPC called for in their policy statement produced at their party convention.... Perhaps.....

I guess we will have to wait and see a little longer. ???


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jan 2006)

Well, with all these "rapid reaction brigades", the CPC would have to import then entire 75th Ranger Regiment to meet the numbers.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Jan 2006)

battalions


----------



## Infanteer (3 Jan 2006)

opps-haha; My mistake.


----------



## Monsoon (3 Jan 2006)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> So there are 3250 troops right there! Add in the 100 reg force pers in each major city... figure another 600 troops there... Will they disperse the brigades to do this?


No, they'll just take in the 5,000 additional soldiers that the Liberals have already gotten the wheels turning to recruit, but they'll spread them all the f*ck over the country so that they can't train together in any meaningful way.

When was it decided that the reserve units are too brain-damaged to act in the event of an emergency?  Or that 100 guys cooling their heels waiting for something to happen is an effective use of manpower?  This is exactly the sort of "man the garrison" mentality that modern militaries are moving away from, and the Canada Command structure being put in place is specifically designed to address.  In fact, CANCOM is designed around the principle of _not_ using the locally-stationed CF members for emergency response - they're expected to be too busy looking after their own families (_à la_ the New Orleans Police Department).  As long as the forces stationed at the central bases are ready to move quickly, it doesn't matter where they are located.

Politicians make policy and defence planners figure out how to implement it: "we want a battalion here, here and here" isn't policy, it's pork-barrelling.


----------



## NL_engineer (3 Jan 2006)

The policy I seen from a friend working on a Conservatives campain, was basically; Expand the forces, Up the Op tempo  (Iraq months after election), and cut costs  (we are one of the highest paid armies in the world, so I speculate the Conservatives will be like Gorge Bush and cut pay to the forces by 10+%). :


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Jan 2006)

Or perhaps employ a higher proportion of private/corporals?


----------



## canuck101 (3 Jan 2006)

Employ for shorter periods of service so very low benefits or none at all.


----------



## Gunner (4 Jan 2006)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> The policy I seen from a friend working on a Conservatives campain, was basically; Expand the forces, Up the Op tempo  (Iraq months after election), and cut costs  (we are one of the highest paid armies in the world, so I speculate the Conservatives will be like Gorge Bush and cut pay to the forces by 10+%). :



I repectfully submit that your comments are a very poor rumour (or fearmongering if that is your wish) and "your friend" working on the Conservative campaign is blowing smoke out of his/her ***.  It would be political suicide for the Conservatives (in a minority or weak majority situation) to contemplate deploying Canadian soldiers into Iraq and the opposition parties would force a minority government to fall quickly.  Secondly, if the second line of operation is committed the army will be under severe pressure trying to maintain these two commitments in addition to expanding the army.  Thirdly, cutting costs would be a huge morale destroyer without any budget "deficit" dragon to blame it on.  Again political suicide and highly unlikely considering the pro military stance of the CPC.  Mind you, the Conservatives will have to pay for all of the pork barrel politics providing a "battalion" for every urban setting including infrastructure for the units...

Sorry, don't buy it at all.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Jan 2006)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> ............and cut costs  (we are one of the highest paid armies in the world, so I speculate the Conservatives will be like Gorge Bush and cut pay to the forces by 10+%). :


Surely you jest?

Do you realize what you have just said?  How would this pay cut take effect?  Lay off 10% of all those new Recruits that the CPC are planning on getting?  Or a 10% pay cut straight across the board for everyone in the CF?  No doubt you realize that the CF Pay is linked into the Public Civil Service Pay Scales and to effect a pay cut to the members of the CF would also apply to the Public Civil Service.  This statement of yours is crap.  It would be suicide for the CPC to even contemplate 'punishing' the members of the CF and Public Civil Service in this way.

This definitely shows a lack of knowledge on your part as to what the situation truly is.


----------



## scm77 (4 Jan 2006)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> (we are one of the highest paid armies in the world, so I speculate the Conservatives will *be like Gorge Bush and cut pay to the forces by 10+%*). :



Since Gunner already debunked the first part of your post, can you support this at all?  Because I looked and all I could find was info saying US Military pay has increased every year since 2002 (atleast).

2004-2006 ->Pay increases every year
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/fy2005paycharts/a/paycharts.htm

2003 ->Minimum 4.1% Increase
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/militarypay/l/aa03pay1.htm

2002->6.9% Average Increase
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0101/010702afps.htm

Perhaps it happened in 2001 or 2000 (though I can't find anything stating that).  So please back up your information for us.


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 Jan 2006)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> The policy I seen from a friend working on a Conservatives campain, was basically; Expand the forces, Up the Op tempo  (Iraq months after election), and cut costs  (we are one of the highest paid armies in the world, so I speculate the Conservatives will be like Gorge Bush and cut pay to the forces by 10+%). :



Since our pay scales and our future cost of living increases are now tied to the civil service wage structure, will they all get a pay cut too?


----------



## McG (4 Jan 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> George, you may be right as the Conservatives announcement is short on explanation as to what these soldiers (Reg or Res) will be doing in the major centres.


My first impression of this was that he is offering 10/90 battalions in every major city.



			
				Almeida said:
			
		

> With the Conservatives funding backing up Mr. Hilliers plans we would be unstoppable...


My concern is that Mr O'Connor has indicated that the party would not support all of the initiatives started under the CDS, but which of Gen Hillier's plans would they stop/undo?



			
				signalsguy said:
			
		

> So what is the running total now?
> 
> Comox - 650
> Trenton - 650
> ...


Plus an additional 500 pers to MARPAC.  I would like to know if the plan for these three new battalions is to integrate them into the existing brigades (in which case why not put them into the existing super-bases) or to have them report to another chain of command (in which case, why not combine them into PM Martin's new brigade promised from the previous election).


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jan 2006)

My sense is that the CPC has proposed an increase in force strength to take reg numbers from 60,000 currently, past the 65,000 currently planned, to 75,000 or just a bit shy of Senator Kenny's committee's recommendation.  Timeline and budget is not clear - to say the least.

As for the reason for dispersing troops to Comox, Goose Bay and Jonquiere - simple - Presence.  It serves the Forces to be seen.  It serves the Government to be seen.  After all that ultimately was the reason for the sponsorship programme.  People need to see that their government does things.  One of the things it should be seen doing is supplying defence.  Even if there might be savings associated with concentration in super-bases the "inefficiencies" in this case might be justified.  It would also give more locations in which people could choose to serve - maybe not every Newfoundlander wants to serve in Edmonton nor every BC type serve in Pet or Valcartier.

Presence.  The government, and the forces, need to be seen.  When people see them, and see them doing things they expect them to be doing (whatever those might be) then they are more likely to start considering becoming part of that 65, 75 or 80,000.


----------



## McG (4 Jan 2006)

Are they still planning a Goose Bay battalion?


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jan 2006)

Damfino for sure but I think I recall reading recently that the Goose Bay battalion was still on.

I wonder if this might not be the picture being drawn:

CanadaCom 

Front Line - Civil Institutions (RCMP and other agencies, federal, provincial, municipal) - NOT UNDER COMMAND - Lead agencies in urban areas

First Support Line - 10/90 or 30/70 battalions for local support of civil authorities - ACP and Disaster Relief

Second Support Line - Regional Battalions - Comox, Jonquiere, Goose Bay? - ACP and Disaster Relief in support of Civil Authority in urban areas - possible lead in remote areas south of 60 and Ungava

Third Support Line - Airborne Battalion and DART - Trenton - focused on North of 60 and Arctic Archipelago - possibly working with troop carrying ice-breakers as well?

CanSOFCom

JTF2

CSOR

CanExCom? 

6-9 Task Forces found from existing 3 Brigade Groups?

Rotate troops?  Rotate Units?  Manning? All sorts of questions, agreed, and it would be nice to know what the details look like but I don't think we can assume that this would necessarily be all bad.

And I admit a bias that is cutting the CPC a lot of slack.  On the other hand I was also willing to give the Liberals credit, in particular David Pratt and Bill Graham for stepping up to the plate and supporting Gen'l Hillier.

Cheers


----------



## Gunner (4 Jan 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Presence.  The government, and the forces, need to be seen.  When people see them, and see them doing things they expect them to be doing (whatever those might be) then they are more likely to start considering becoming part of that 65, 75 or 80,000.



Kirkhill,  I work in one of the most military friendly cities and provinces in Canada and the CF/Army has sunk hundred's of millions of dollars into the economy over the last 10 years.  I still meet people asking me about how the "air base" is doing.  I don't buy the presence argument at all.  If you want Canadians to "see the federal government doing something" they would plug large units in the centre of major centres and they can stage a weekly freedom of the city.  It's pure pork barreling and it will be a waste of much needed funding for higher priority areas in the CF. Stationing units in remote areas will be a serious morale issue for these soldiers (look at the whining that went on when they moved 2 PPCLI to Shilo).


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jan 2006)

Points taken Gunner.

I hope you are wrong.  I will cling to my "delusions" for a while longer.

I like your large units in the centre of major cities (like NDHQ?   or better yet like CFB Calgary?),  and your freedom of the city parades.  As to remote stations, I get Goose Bay (not been there) and Iqaluit (there neither), but do Trenton, Comox and Jonquiere really qualify as remote?


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jan 2006)

I was talking to Matt Fisher the other day and we agreed that the "Superbase" approach like we see in the US is the better than scattering units to the wind, but a Brigade based anywhere in Canada should be near a decent community and also have a respectable training area.  Ft Lewis, Ft Bragg, and Ft Hood come to mind.  If the Army was to plunk a 5000 man Brigade in a decent sized town, there would be a boost to the civilian economy and a larger civilian population as a consequence.

So, in essence, instead of seeing new units scattered to Comox and Jonquiere, I'd rather see new units consolidated and a new Brigade (or at least Bde -) put somewhere where one could meet both of the above requirements.  Perhaps in the Okanagan in BC (where there is plenty of land for a training area to be acquired and some descent-sized communties like Kamloops, Kelowna, Vernon, Peniction) as an example?


----------



## ArmyRick (4 Jan 2006)

I agree. Its a waste of funds to scatter every unit to all ends of the country. For what? Army representation? We still have have reserve units that represent the CF as well.


----------



## Gunner (4 Jan 2006)

> So, in essence, instead of seeing new units scattered to Comox and Jonquiere, I'd rather see new units consolidated and a new Brigade (or at least Bde -) put somewhere where one could meet both of the above requirements.  Perhaps in the Okanagan in BC (where there is plenty of land for a training area to be acquired and some decent-sized communties like Kamloops, Kelowna, Vernon, Peniction) as an example?



I guess what I am frustrated about with the CPC is a lack of depth to their policy issues.  Stand up an Airborne Regiment. Not necessarily opposed to it but for what purpose?  Stand up Rapid Reaction Bns in remote areas, again not necessarily opposed to it but for what purpose?  Stand up an Artic Training Centre..ok, but for what overall purpose?  Stand up 500 man (100 Reg/400 Res) Home Defence Units...for what purpose.  Etc, etc, etc.  Maybe that is too much to expect during an election but the devil is in the details.

Do you think there is room for a brigade in the Okanagan?  It would probably take significant cash resources to create a base and training area there when we have suitable ones already on the Prairies....


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jan 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> Maybe that is too much to expect during an election but the devil is in the details.



Spoken like a true Staff Officer.... 



> Do you think there is room for a brigade in the Okanagan?  It would probably take significant cash resources to create a base and training area there when we have suitable ones already on the Prairies....



Well, if I were simply increasing the number of new units, I would probably just expand at Shilo or Gagetown (if it could be done).  Shilo seems to get dumped on, but my buddy in 2VP says that Brandon is close enough to ensure that being posted there is not quite the "sticks" - it ain't Winnipeg, but I'm from a town of 10,000 and we got Walmart! 

My idea for the Okanagan was based upon opening up bases in new areas of Canada.  Thinking on it, putting a major army unit/formation on Vancouver Island is a bad idea - having family there, I can attest to the difficulty of getting on or off the island.  Try moving a battalion via BC Ferries. ^-^  In two areas in the Okanagon/Thompson area that me and Matt discussed, Merritt or Vernon, there seems to be ample room for a base and training area.  These are nice communities and are .5-1 hour drive (no different then St Albert to Whyte Ave  ) on good roads to a very large city with all the urban services such as university access, big malls, airports (Kamloops and Kelowna - both over 100,000 IIRC).  This is just a cursory idea of where to "build new CF presence" based on a few principles I discussed above for locating new garrisons.  The devil, as you say, is in the details.


----------



## Michael OLeary (4 Jan 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> This is just a cursory idea of where to "build new CF presence" based on a few principles I discussed above for locating new garrisons.  The devil, as you say, is in the details.



Can I suggest that the landward side of the expected earthquake zone might be the place to start for "new" western garrisons?


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Jan 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Can I suggest that the landward side of the expected earthquake zone might be the place to start for "new" western garrisons?



But ... but then we wouldn't need the big honkin' ship...


----------



## Gunner (4 Jan 2006)

> Can I suggest that the landward side of the expected earthquake zone might be the place to start for "new" western garrisons?



The other element to this is what type of unit would be stationed there which would drive training requirements.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jan 2006)

> I guess what I am frustrated about with the CPC is a lack of depth to their policy issues.



Agreed.


----------



## McG (4 Jan 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> I guess what I am frustrated about with the CPC is a lack of depth to their policy issues.


My thoughts exactly.



			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> Maybe that is too much to expect during an election but the devil is in the details.


At the very least, we could expect them to have an opinion on transformation initiatives that are already in the works.  Mr O'Connor has indicated that some/many initiatives may be aborted, but he has not said which ones.  Even when asked specifically about CSOR, he could not say if it would exist under a Torie government.  Does the Conservative defence critic have so little an idea of what is actually going-on in the CF that the party cannot form an opinion on major changes currently in the works?

It seems that the Conservative platform is battalions in the wind & the Liberal platform is the current transformation that we are undergoing.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Jan 2006)

From a strictly political standpoint though their campaign strategy seems to be successful to date.  By breaking policies down into 56 bite size morsels, one for each day, it allows them to give the press something to report but no hard target for the other parties to attack.

Apologia 79....   I make no bones about it.  I am supporting the CPC this time.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Jan 2006)

I don't want the army penny-packeted out to bases across the country.  I'd rather buy aircraft.  I think it unlikely one earthquake is going to nail YVR, Abbotsford, Sea-Tac, McChord, Gray AAF, etc.


----------



## McG (6 Jan 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> From a strictly political standpoint though their campaign strategy seems to be successful to date.  By breaking policies down into 56 bite size morsels, one for each day, it allows them to give the press something to report but no hard target for the other parties to attack.


I think there is plenty to attack; particularly the lack of over-arching policy that ties all these announcments together into a coherent vision.  As I've mentioned, all it consists of is large numbers of troops spread on the wind.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Jan 2006)

McG:

There is plenty to attack for those of you whose lives are inextricably intertwined with the decisions.  Unfortunately most voters glaze over at the details.

All they want to hear about is that money is going to those things they believe in.  The good news is that they believe in spending money on you.  The bad news is they don't want to spend too much money.

By putting out elements of the defence policy in dribs and drabs, by pandering to local concerns, this may get local voters to say "that sounds like a good idea, I can see a need for a new armoury, with a permanent staff backed by volunteers. I'll back that".  Or "500 more people for the Arctic and 3 ice breakers with 200 people and a couple of UAV squadrons.  That doesn't seem like an unreasonable investment". 

By taking the policy to the electorate in small doses of "reasonable" projects,  and getting local buy in, to use the buzz word of the trade then the rationale for the budget may become more supportable so that eventually all the individual components can be knitted together into one overarching policy and presented in toto.

The alternative has been to put all of defence policy into a one day release of mind-numbing detail and a frighteningly large price tag on the status quo, let alone the price of increasing capabilities.

This is salesmanship pure and simple.

No salesman ever makes a sale by announcing the price and then letting the customer read the details.  Better strategy is to either ignore or go high on the price (offered as a ball park figure) and then lead the customer through the details of what the programme can do for them,  bit by bit, dollar by dollar.

I understand the CPC strategy.  I doesn't necessarily mean that I have to like the necessity for doing business this way.  I just hope, that as ethical salesmen, they present the final proposal in time for it to be considered prior to us issuing them the "cheque" at the ballot box.

And yes it may be pork-barelling, but keep in mind the money you lot are asking for is coming from the same trough that the rest of society feeds at.

Keep in mind that as true as it is that there is only one taxpayer it is equally true that 50% of the economy flows through government coffers.  That means that roughly 50% of all taxpayers are reliant, directly or indirectly, on government programmes for their daily bread - welfare, EI, pensions, civil servants, crown corporations, private corporations with government contracts and, yes, the military.

If people see that programmes give benefit to them and their community, if people see that it is not an issue taking food off their table to buy you tanks to use in Iraq but rather that they can make money from a well equipped CF,  then they are more likely to allow the government to divert some more of their tax dollars so that they will flow through the CF.  They have to see that it is not an issue of Guns OR Butter but an issue of Guns AND Butter.

If that means you have to give some efficiencies to get more support and funding, Insh'allah.  That's compromise, salesmanship and politics.

Cheers.

For example - housing 650 new bodies on a base 

650 bodies, allow 500 square feet per body for living space (average - including blocks for singles and PMQs), allow 50 dollars per square foot to build them = $16,250,000.  That is money that can flow directly into the local economy employing local trades people.  For a relatively low investment in added funds to the CF budget then the government can not only put up a local presence, but also pump money into the local economy (which mollified the Germans at Lahr) and get you lot new quarters.  

Yes there is an impact on operations - and that isn't necessarily good - it depends on what the government intends all these dispersed units to do and how they will operate, agreed, and there I too am waiting for detail.  With rumours of amphibious, airborne and arctic capable troops it may also not all be bad.


----------



## McG (6 Jan 2006)

Here is the Ruxted Group's take on Defence Politics in this election: 
Editorial: Election Defence Policies  

Kirkhill,
Don't you think this method of buying voters is open to attack?  How is Defence pork-barrel politics any better than what the Tory's attack-adds focus about the Liberals?


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Jan 2006)

Certainly its open to attack.  By whom?


----------



## McG (10 Jan 2006)

> Graham promotes military vision in Edmonton
> Edmonton Journal
> Published: January 9, 2006
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jan 2006)

> Harper : International consensus needed for war
> Updated Tue. Jan. 10 2006 4:04 PM ET
> 
> Canadian Press
> ...



http://www.ctv.ca//servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060103/ELXN_harper_war_060109/20060110?s_name=election2006&no_ads=

PS.  In the new array of "Kill Stephen" attack ads the Liberals had one criticising Harper for wanting to put "Soldiers, with guns" in Canadian cities.  Interestingly that ad was pulled from their web site within hours.  Speculation on CTV was the the military had made it known that they weren't pleased at having it suggested that they might be used against Canadians.

Here's the link to all the ad in question:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38335.0.html

As to Rudd's comment.  I guess we'll have to wait and see on the budget.

Cheers.


----------



## D-n-A (10 Jan 2006)

http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/audio/ProudToBeCanadian.ca_CTV_Liberal_ad_Cancelled.wmv


----------



## chrisf (10 Jan 2006)

We were driving down the highway doing 20 in an LSVW the other day, people passing us with irritated looks on their faces...

I wanted to put a sign on the back of the truck that said "If you voted conservative, you'd be going faster right now."


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Jan 2006)

Nice ad.  

Good to see that all we are to the Liberal Party of Canada is either:

a) a bunch of barely-under-control psychopaths who should be kept as far away from "real Canadians" (ie city dwellers) as possible;
b) a bludgeon to be used in partisan politics.

I'm actually offended.  Deeply offended.


----------



## RangerRay (10 Jan 2006)

I am beyond POed at this.  Between this, the handgun ban, and their proposal to take away the Notwithstanding Clause (thus removing any democratic oversight over politically appointed judges) the Libranos are now a far more dangerous party than the NDP, IMHO...


----------



## Rescue Randy (10 Jan 2006)

WTFO?   All hell broke loose on Mike Duffy, CTV, after the french debate.  The Liberals launched, then pulled an ad which makes the military look rather strange - let's just say that we do not appear to be trusted.  I got the text of the ad off the CTV site, it is as follows:

"Stephen Harper actually announced he wants to increase military presence in our cities. Canadian cities. Soldiers with guns. In our cities. In Canada. We did not make this up. Choose your Canada."


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jan 2006)

Rescue Randy said:
			
		

> WTFO?   All hell broke loose on Mike Duffy, CTV, after the french debate.  The Liberals launched, then pulled an ad which makes the military look rather strange - let's just say that we do not appear to be trusted.  I got the text of the ad off the CTV site, it is as follows:
> 
> "Stephen Harper actually announced he wants to increase military presence in our cities. Canadian cities. Soldiers with guns. In our cities. In Canada. We did not make this up. Choose your Canada."



As seen in the CTV news earlier:

http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/audio/ProudToBeCanadian.ca_CTV_Liberal_ad_Cancelled.wmv

And from another thread:



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Liberal mouthpiece John Duffy on Mike Duffy's show just stated that that ad was not a Liberal party ad and he has no idea how it got included with the rest.  Despite the fact that it was released with the rest, has the Liberal logo, was on the Liberal website and makes up an even dozen.  Tory gremlins I guess or Chretien moles.


  and:


			
				Scott57 said:
			
		

> That's not what I heard. I had watched that earlier. It's ongoing. In fact, I just watched (CTV - 2020hrs).  Mike Duffy *exploded* on John Duffy on his intimidation tactics. Apparently, during a break, he had asked Mike Duffy not to bring the subject up again. After the debate, Mike Duffy asked the question again ( who came up with this idea). When John Duffy answered with his own question (words to the effect - Why do people wish to continue with this issue when we just finished this debate ...), .Mike Duffy exploded, went at him ref to Party integrity etc etc. Nice !!


----------



## scm77 (10 Jan 2006)

http://www.liberal.ca/contact_e.aspx

Fire away.


----------



## RangerRay (11 Jan 2006)

As I said on another thread, apparently Ujhall Dosanjh (sp?) was on TV saying that the ads, including this disgusting POS, were approved by the PM himself.  This was BEFORE it was announced that this one was pulled.

 :threat: :skull:

Edit: Here's another link to Mike Duffy ripping Librano hack John Duffy a new one

http://www.conservativelife.com/videos/duffy.wmv


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Jan 2006)

Thanks Ranger.   

Notice this is not even mentioned on the CBC website as a head line: http://www.cbc.ca/news/ .


----------



## RangerRay (11 Jan 2006)

No worries...check this out:

Ridings...with soldiers...with Liberal MPs...

http://www.catprint.ca/blog/blog/politics


----------



## career_radio-checker (11 Jan 2006)

So besides telling eachother their disaproval of the Liberal add, has anyone bothered to tell the people responsible for the ad?!!!

I just got off the phone with the liberal candidate in my riding. Citicized them about the add and told them that they just alienated every soldier in the CF and any veteran who served in the past. 

Now I'm going to call the conservative candidate and tell him to bring up the issue at tonight's local debate.


----------



## McG (12 Jan 2006)

Rescue Randy said:
			
		

> The Liberals launched, then pulled an ad which makes the military look rather strange - let's just say that we do not appear to be trusted.


I suspect it was intended to suggest that the Conservatives would bring all of Canada back to a state like Quebec & Ottawa in the October Crissis (so more a matter of "don't trust the Conservatives), but it seems foolish regardless of the perspective they were trying to take.

Bill Graham is also taking shots at the Conservative defence platform.  A little more thought into his argument than what went into that advertisment:


> *Harper accused of lowballing costs*
> Price tag for military proposals would be three times higher, federal defence minister charges
> Gordon Kent, The Edmonton Journal
> Published: Tuesday, January 10, 2006
> ...


. . . but, as it seems more & more every day that the Conservative defece policy will be the one to guide us through the next few years, I wonder if they will tell us about thier plans to reinforce the Arty Regts, Engr Regts, Field Ambs, Svc Bns, and all those other elements which are essential in order to augment/support infantry battalions on operations.


----------



## McG (12 Jan 2006)

Liberals would ban weapons in space; Conservatives would be open to entering a negotiation with the U.S. on missile defence.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Jan 2006)

So why are weapons in space such a bad thing? Are people worried about us hurting the enviroment up there or something? Honest question.


(moved)


----------



## GonzoScribe (12 Jan 2006)

I do have to wonder from where did the concept of having military bases in major urban areas?  Did the defence review come up with this one, some think tank or is this merely politicizing the military issue?

We know we need more money in the military.  But, considering the limited funds we constantly run up against, I would like to think we form defence policy on well-thought out strategies.  While the Liberal ad upset me, I don't think it was meant to diss the armed forces, rather to make citizens consider what it might look like - a throw back to the October crisis' state of martial law.  It was designed to create a level of fear of a police state.  

However, if the sole purpose of positioning armed forces in urban areas is for potential disaster work, and not for its strategic benefit overall, I find that equally insulting.  

I'm interested in a well-funded, strategically positioned military capable of defending our nation at home and out values abroad.  Whether we can actually afford it is a key question.  I would love to hear from a politician on any side of the spectrum, first a realistic accounting of how much it would cost to give us what we deserve and secondly how we are going to pay for it.  But that would require a consensus on what we need military-wise, and I have yet to see that.

I am at a loss on who to vote for because I don't think any party envisions an armed forces the way most on this list do.  And as I go through the history of parliamentary support for the armed forces, I see that both Liberals and Conservatives have failed to adequately fund the military.  And both parties are guilty of letting our military prowess fade.  It will be a costly endeavour to undo a couple of decade's worth of budget cuts and watering down of projects delivered by both parties.

I might be alone in this, but I am bothered by the politicization of the military as an election pawn.  I feel used, manipulated and dirty, taken from behind without even the courtesy of a reach around.

I'm going to hit the showers,

Gonzoscribe (Mike C.)


----------



## McG (12 Jan 2006)

Any new discussion on the Liberal Attack Ad that featured soldiers in cities can be done here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38348.0/all.html


----------



## McG (14 Jan 2006)

From the Conservative Election Platform:



> Defending Canada
> For decades, successive Liberal governments have undermined and under funded Canada’s
> armed forces. We need to strengthen Canada’s independent capacity to defend our national
> sovereignty and security. In an increasingly dangerous world this “Canada First” vision is required
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Jan 2006)

Cheers McG.

Next, we need to hold them to it IF they manage to make it to 24 Sussex.


----------



## muffin (16 Jan 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> From the Conservative Election Platform:
> • Complete the transformation of military operations and defence administration.



I wonder if he means complete it as Hillier intended - or with any significant differences. I have emailed Steven Harper to ask this very question. If I receive a response I will post it here. 

Maggie


----------



## McG (17 Jan 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> Are they still planning a Goose Bay battalion?


Well, they've announced an answer to this: Yes.



> *Conservatives press attack over Liberal military ad gaffe*
> Harper promises provinces 'new style of federalism'
> Allan Woods, CanWest News Service with files from The Canadina Press
> Published: Monday, January 16, 2006
> ...


----------



## McG (17 Jan 2006)

> *What will urban troops do between disasters?*
> The Edmonton Journal
> Letter Published: Monday, January 16, 2006
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jan 2006)

I'll take a crack at arguing this.



> It is logical to assume these forces might be made up of 30 to 40 infantry, 20 to 30 armoured personnel, and other essential specialists such as engineers, signalers, and service support troops.


   

While the force might be made up as suggested, equally it might not be. It could just as easily be weighted towards the specialists and command appointments rather than combat arms.  Admittedly we don't know and that is frustrating but I don't think we have to assume that this is poorly thought out or that it is necessarily without the sanction of those currently in uniform.



> So what will the urban garrison do between these emergencies?



I would suggest that 400 out of the 500 will do what they are currently doing.  Parade and Train, perhaps with an addtional focus to their training, perhaps with additional facilities, perhaps with additional support.  Again we don't know but asking what they would do between emergencies is akin to asking what the local Volunteer Fire Department does between fires.

As to the other 100 - the regular force members - and here: are they talking about 100% regs or some proportion of Class B and C callouts? - again it is not known.  What could they be usefully employed at?

How about training the other 400 as individuals and the 500 as a unit in basic soldiering skills and conducting VP defences, patrolling and other security taskings?  Skills like driving vehicles and conducting first line maintenance - higher levels if possible?  How about training to set up comms nets when the power goes down?   How about conducting CIMIC planning with local politicians and emergency services?  How about conducting familiarization recces in town - reviewing hazardous sites and critical services sites?  How about finding out what holes there are in local plans that need filling - operations more than the local authorities can handle but less than "end of the world" scenarios that require brigades of reg forces (that may be in Afghanistan in any event)?  Training to conduct assessments of needs and being able to have resources delivered?  How about being available to assist other communities either locally or as part of a larger concentrated response?

I don't think the issue is what will these people do.  I think the issue is what resources are going to be supplied to these organizations to allow them to train effectively and to conduct effectively whatever operations they might assigned.  And there I admit frustration - but as I said previously, it is an election campaign.  It isn't an O-group.

Cheers.


----------



## wdewitt (17 Jan 2006)

I believe that the funding has to in proof because the whole Armed Forces is at such a state they can not
take any more away. The Liberal comment about soldiers with guns in the city's of Canada has put them on there last leg. ;Support for Canada Forces is in the media and lost of personnel has hit home.
I have worked with numerous Armed Force Personnel and enjoy there leadership and company.
I know it has been hard on our troops but Canadains are proud our our success that have been done at home.Red River Flood  My heart goes out to the loss of your comrades. It never easy to say goodbye. As for your deployments across the world have made you our" best ambassador's." ;D


----------



## RangerRay (17 Jan 2006)

Looks like the Socialist Horde wants us to hand out candy and help old ladies cross the street in Kandahar...

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/CanadaVotes/2006/01/17/1398545-cp.html



> *Canadians don't support Afghan offensive: Layton*
> 
> By MURRAY BREWSTER
> 
> ...


----------



## McG (17 Jan 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> As to the other 100 - the regular force members - and here: are they talking about 100% regs or some proportion of Class B and C callouts? - again it is not known.


We do know that the party has been saying 100 regular members and 400 reserve members (not 100 full-time and 400 part-time), so I think it is clear.

Here is a compilation of the announcements:
Conservatives call for boost to Canadian Forces 
Stephen Harper stands up for Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic  
Conservatives will boost defence on West Coast to protect Canadian sovereignty
Stephen Harper commits to increased funding for the military in Québec
Stephen Harper promotes benefits of Conservative platform for Atlantic Canada


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jan 2006)

From MCG:



> . . . but, as it seems more & more every day that the Conservative defece policy will be the one to guide us through the next few years, I wonder if they will tell us about thier plans to reinforce the Arty Regts, Engr Regts, Field Ambs, Svc Bns, and all those other elements which are essential in order to augment/support infantry battalions on operations.



http://www.conservative.ca/2023/37059/



> Increased personnel. More regular and reserve force personnel will be provided at other CF bases in throughout the region (Western Canada in this case) to fill out existing operational, support and training units.



From the backgrounder on the Conservative policy.  Attached to each press release.


----------



## McG (18 Jan 2006)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Looks like the Socialist Horde wants us to hand out candy and help old ladies cross the street in Kandahar...



It seems the NDP are alone in their opinion.


> Party leaders stand by Afghan mission
> By MICHAEL DEN TANDT AND GLORIA GALLOWAY
> Tuesday, January 17, 2006 Posted at 4:51 AM EST
> From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060117.wxafghanmain17/BNStory/Front


----------



## Cpl.Banks (23 Jan 2006)

"lol I find this funny how he keeps saying throughout that document peacekeeping this and peacekeeping that and UN this. Canada is at WAR we are not peacekeeping anymore   I really don't know what else to say to this guy other then What??"

Actually technically we are not at war, Afghanistan is actually a police action , we are invited by the govt of Afghanistan to help maintain security and allowing the country to get back on its feet. Say if Hamid Karzai told us to leave within a few days we would have to oblige him. Also there was never any formal declaration of war, unlike the current conflict in Iraq. Thanks, if anyone disagrees with me feel free to say something. Sorry for going off on a tangent. 

p.s. the NDP were probably too busy roasting their tofu burgers to notice that the Canadian population were behind their soldiers and the mission.


----------



## gnplummer421 (23 Jan 2006)

Well it's crunch time as we speak, the politicians are hovered around their supporters waiting for the tally. I tried to weed out the biggest liars out of the buch, but I did vote Conservatives today. They seem to be supporting military spending the most, but we all know promises don't mean s**t unles they follow up and act on those promises. I am sick of hearing "we will spend x number of dollars.......but not until ten years from now...I'm desperately waiting for a politician with the nuts to be proactive. The NDP/Green Party/Bloc are all out because they have nothing in their platforms I like and the Liberals need to be punished for getting too cocky with our money. That only left Conservatives. It was more like process of elimination that led to my decision..I hope they don't let me down if they get in, because you know....I'll be bitc***g about it 

Gnplummer421


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jan 2006)

Some closing thoughts:

http://www.austinbay.net/blog/index.php?p=834



> 1/23/2006
> *Oh, Canada/with some thoughts on the Canadian military*
> 
> Over the weekend wire and blog reports I read said the race between the Conservatives and Liberals had tightened. Apparently voters in the Maritimes are particularly vulnerable to allegations that those “Conservatives out West” are dangerous folks, almost Americans. What’s the word for “borking” in Canadian? In this case “borking en masse.” Perhaps the appropriate description is “plain old scare tactics.” I haven’t seen a poll looking at the Maritimes (if some one has, send me a link). In 1998 my family took a long car and ferry tour of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. We spent a wonderful week on Prince Edward Island. The lovely Maritimes could use a jolt of Reagan-esque economic juice.
> ...



Read the rest; virtually all positive comments from our brothers in arms in the comments section.


----------

