# Is it time to disband the Canadian Armed Forces?



## 211RadOp (12 Feb 2013)

This from a paper in a city with a long military tradition.

http://www.thewhig.com/2013/02/10/is-it-time-to-disband-the-canadian-armed-forces?utm_source=addThis&utm_medium=addthis_button_facebook&utm_campaign=Is+it+time+to+disband+the+Canadian+Armed+Forces%3F+%7C+Column+%7C+Opinion+%7C+The+Kingston+Whig-Standard#.URjjrzU5vH8.facebook


Is it time to disband the Canadian Armed Forces?  

By Dale Sutherland

 Sunday, February 10, 2013 9:22:37 EST PM 

Seventeen months from now we will be commemorating the 100th anniversary of the beginning of The Great War. The Austria-Hungarian Empire fired the first salvos of the First World War One into Serbia on July 28, 1914. The last shots were fired Nov. 11, 1918.

During the intervening 1,568 days and nights of war, 56,644 Canadian soldiers were killed outright. A multiple of that number were declared missing in action or died of wounds and disease or returned home to their people emasculated, blinded, limbs lost and otherwise physically and mentally torn up. The Canadian Forces killed and wounded an unknowable number of Europeans.

...

Canada is a respected secondary power. Our country has bled in every major war during the past 100 years (except Vietnam) and we have earned the right to decide to stop warring. Perhaps the greatest honour Canada could do for our fallen heroes and all the others impacted by Canadians at war would be for our country to take the lead among the nations and to totally disband the Canadian armed forces. We would thus remove the issue of armed conflict from our political agenda and disassociate our culture and economy from its commitment to participate in war.

...

(Much more on link)


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Feb 2013)

Long military tradition and large ostrich-head-in-sand NDP population...  :facepalm:


----------



## jwtg (12 Feb 2013)

211RadOp said:
			
		

> This from a paper in a city with a long military tradition.
> 
> http://www.thewhig.com/2013/02/10/is-it-time-to-disband-the-canadian-armed-forces?utm_source=addThis&utm_medium=addthis_button_facebook&utm_campaign=Is+it+time+to+disband+the+Canadian+Armed+Forces%3F+%7C+Column+%7C+Opinion+%7C+The+Kingston+Whig-Standard#.URjjrzU5vH8.facebook
> 
> ...



Nobody told me there had been a Second World War One.  

I never trust a journalist who can't write, or editors who can't edit.


----------



## medicineman (12 Feb 2013)

It looks like Neville Chamberlain was reincarnated...into a sub-standard reporter for a sub-standard newspaper.

MM


----------



## Haletown (12 Feb 2013)

Si vis Pacem, para Bellum.

True then, very, very true today.


----------



## Journeyman (12 Feb 2013)

jwtg said:
			
		

> I never trust a journalist who can't write, or editors who can't edit.


...or a Wolfe Island muck-raker    


To be fair, he's not a "reporter" -- merely a member of their "Community Editorial Board."


> The Whig-Standard is inviting readers to apply for a place on the newspaper’s Community Editorial Board. You must be willing to commit to writing six columns and occasional 100-word pieces during the coming year.
> 
> These are volunteer positions.


----------



## dapaterson (12 Feb 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> To be fair, he's not a "reporter" -- merely a member of their "Community Editorial Board."



It may well be a volunteer position, but the Whig should still do basic editing.

And I still think he's overpaid...


----------



## Journeyman (12 Feb 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ......but the Whig should still do basic editing.


But that would be "the man" oppressing him; denying his freedom of word-mangling!  :bla-bla:


----------



## ArmyGuy99 (12 Feb 2013)

I do believe my Great-Grandfather, Grandfather and other family members and friends who served in the Canadian Army just rolled over in their graves and  :boke:


----------



## Old Sweat (12 Feb 2013)

It is a pity that the piece is so poorly written because it is a legitimate point of view. It also is an unrealistic and misguided point of view, but one that deserves to be put forward by someone who has a grasp of composition and grammar.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Feb 2013)

211RadOp said:
			
		

> Perhaps the greatest honour Canada could do for our fallen heroes and all the others impacted by Canadians at war would be for our country to take the lead among the nations and to totally disband the Canadian armed forces. We would thus remove the issue of armed conflict from our political agenda and disassociate our culture and economy from its commitment to participate in war.



WRT to the yellow text, I fully support this line of thinking and think we can use it in other areas as well!

1.  Get rid of all the firestations/halls; thereby stopping fires from happening.

2.  Shut down all police stations, and lay off all law enforcement officer; thereby stopping crime from happening.

3.  Might as well include hospitals!  Shut 'em all down, afterall who likes sickness and disease?  Just eliminate it all by shutting down anything/everything designed to deal with it, and it will just go away.

Magical.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (12 Feb 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> . . . . . the Whig should still do basic editing.



It appears to me that "basic editing" is these days limited to hitting the spell check button and even that may be a stretch.  One would only have to review the posts of some (supposedly university educated) aspiring recruits on these means to gain an impression of the importance placed on written English by many.  The language errors of the referenced piece are actually so common as to make them non-noticeable.  However, the premise of the piece, though legitimate (everyone is entitled to an opinion), is misguided.  The writer should probably have taken additional history courses as well as English in university.  But don't worry.  The writer may get his fifteen minutes seconds of fame locally, but I may not be far off in surmising that this thread may be one of the few national analyses of his suggestion and there is not much more to say that hasn't already been said.  This is just another "shake your head moment".


----------



## The_Falcon (12 Feb 2013)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> It appears to me that "basic editing" is these days limited to hitting the spell check button and even that may be a stretch.  One would only have to review the posts of some (supposedly university educated) aspiring recruits on these means to gain an impression of the importance placed on written English by many.



My brother is an aspiring PhD in English at U of Alberta, the rants he posts on facebook about the quality of work that is submitted to him, makes for some very interesting and hilarious reading.


----------



## uptheglens (12 Feb 2013)

"It is unlikely even one word will be spoken in memory of the widows and orphans and bereaved parents of the 'fallen.'"

To me, this just smacks of someone who has never gone to a Remembrance Day service, and doesn't know what he's talking about.

And I agree that his writing is appalling, especially from someone who lists himself as a "raconteur".


----------



## Blackadder1916 (12 Feb 2013)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> My brother is an aspiring PhD in English at U of Alberta . . .


I'm sorry for your family's woes, but it is possible that a cure will be found one day.



> . . .  the rants he posts on facebook about the quality of work that is submitted to him, makes for some very interesting and hilarious reading.



The use of some specific words annoy me when I see them, with "impacted" being a primary offender such as used by the writer of the commentary in The Whig.


> . . . all the others *impacted* by Canadians at war . . .



Maybe it was my involvement with patients who were "impacted" that makes me think about a standard COD definition example whenever I see it used   -   faeces lodged in the intestine.

Maybe the writer is impacted (in the manner of the definition).  At the least, he is probably full of shit.


----------



## The_Falcon (12 Feb 2013)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> I'm sorry for your family's woes, but it is possible that a cure will be found one day.



No woes, he is on a full academic scholarship, meaning he is a tough b*stard on his students, who think they can hand him crap, and still expect good grades.  We always knew he wasn't cut out to be a blue collar shlub like the rest of us.


----------



## Tank Troll (12 Feb 2013)

If your country has no standing army.................................don't worry one will come sooner than latter.


----------



## The_Falcon (12 Feb 2013)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> If your country has no standing army.................................don't worry one will come sooner than latter.



Unless you are Costa Rica or Iceland.


----------



## VIChris (12 Feb 2013)

Hatchet man beat me to it while I was typing. 

Though in our case we have such a long standing tradition of helping out around the world, it would be almost selfish of us to just quit the game. I feel we still have much to offer the world, and are pretty much obliged to assist where we can.


----------



## tomahawk6 (12 Feb 2013)

What would the lib's do with money that was earmarked for defense ?
President Obama is preparing to save US defense money by disposing of nuclear weapons. A bit naive if the other nuclear powers keep their arsenals.


----------



## cupper (12 Feb 2013)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> What would the lib's do with money that was earmarked for defense ?
> President Obama is preparing to save US defense money by disposing of nuclear weapons. A bit naive if the other nuclear powers keep their arsenals.



But when you have enough to eradicate life as we know it several times over, it's just good fiscal management. ;D

Besides, Nukes fall under the DOE's budget. And if I recall, the plan is to get rid of the older obsolete weapons.

And you are just jealous that our Government isn't planning to get rid our nukes. :nana:

Now the fact that we don't have any worth mentioning isn't relevant to this discussion anyway.

As for your original question, most likely go towards rebuilding the robust infrastructure in and around Montreal to give the Separatists something to crow about.


----------



## ArmyRick (12 Feb 2013)

Having just read the article link, it was interesting that everybody who has posted so far on the article comments (as of this DTG anyways) was not in favour of disbanding the CF.


----------



## cupper (12 Feb 2013)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Having just read the article link, it was interesting that everybody who has posted so far on the article comments (as of this DTG anyways) was not in favour of disbanding the CF.



I wonder why? ;D


----------



## George Wallace (12 Feb 2013)

AH!  "The Kingston Substandard".   A newspaper whose editorial pages were always funnier than the Comics page.


----------



## bison33 (12 Feb 2013)

Guess this derriere clown never got the memo that *Armed* was dropped years ago.


----------



## dapaterson (12 Feb 2013)

Trunk Monkey said:
			
		

> Guess this derriere clown never got the memo that *Armed* was dropped years ago.



No, there is one force, the Canadian Armed Forces, known as the Canadian Forces.  That's been in the NDA for years.

Legally, per the National Defence Act, Canadian Forces and Canadian Armed Forces are both valid names.


That various governments prefer one name over the other is another topic altogether...


----------



## Strike (12 Feb 2013)

Trunk Monkey said:
			
		

> Guess this derriere clown never got the memo that *Armed* was dropped years ago.



Actually, it was never officially dropped.


----------



## The_Falcon (12 Feb 2013)

In fact alot of recruitment ads on the various job boards out there will use Canadian Armed Forces.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Feb 2013)

The calm voice of reason to counter Mr. Sutherland:

http://www.thewhig.com/2013/02/15/why-we-must-never-put-down-our-arms


----------



## Journeyman (16 Feb 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The calm voice of reason to counter Mr. Sutherland:


The comments by "DOOH" are a treat.   op:


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Feb 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The comments by "DOOH" are a treat.   op:



The responses to his/her comments are equally entertaining.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Feb 2013)

>Is it time to disband the Canadian Armed Forces?

This is a very bad idea.  Armed forces without bands find it much harder to stay in step.


----------



## Pieman (16 Feb 2013)

> * Perhaps the greatest honour Canada could do for our fallen heroes and all the others impacted by Canadians at war would be for our country to take the lead among the nations and to totally disband the Canadian armed forces.*



This is the BEST idea EVER!!! Let's do it!

....Oh, hello China. What are you doing in our oil sands? What's that? You're taking our coal mines too!? Whatever for??


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Feb 2013)

Pieman said:
			
		

> This is the BEST idea EVER!!! Let's do it!
> 
> ....Oh, hello China. What are you doing in our oil sands? What's that? You're taking our coal mines too!? Whatever for??



Use the sarcasm smilie for shit like this. Someone my take your comments as serious dialogue.

If it was serious, why ramp up the discussion to an, obviously, stupid extreme?

---Staff---


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Feb 2013)

I grew up in Kingston and this is a sentiment I have dealt with for a very long time from a large segment of that city's population.  

I remember my parents sitting me down for a "state of the union" type conversation when they found out I was enrolling.  They asked me why I was throwing my life away and why I wanted to become a drunken wife beater.  Their words not mine. 

To this day my father thinks we are over paid and under worked and an unnecessary drain on national resources.  

Kingston, while portraying an official military friendly feeling can be anything but when you peel back a few layers. 

So dont read too much into what some wing nut from Wolf Island goes on about,  his brain is probably scrambled from the wind turbines and he really deserves our sympathy then...


----------



## Pieman (17 Feb 2013)

> Use the sarcasm smilie for crap like this. Someone my take your comments as serious dialogue.


Sure, I kinda thought that it was blatantly obvious that it was sarcastic....but then I sometimes forget there are those out there with a pretty low comprehension of the written word.


----------



## Journeyman (17 Feb 2013)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> ..... why I wanted to become a drunken wife beater.


Great.   :
Now the Recruiting threads will have a stream of "I heard that I can enlist as a drunken wife beater, but I'm an autistic meth-addict; do I have to drink?"


This is sarcasm.


----------



## skyhigh10 (17 Feb 2013)

I had to double check the calendar and confirm we were not yet in April. I then proceeded to bang my head against the wall to see if i'd wake up. I finally looked out my window to see if I was being punked.  

In the name of all that is righteous...    this guy is actually for real.  

Interesting.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Feb 2013)

This man, however misguided (at least to me), is not alone amongst Canadian's.  There have always been and always will be pacifists out there.  We have them here in Halifax too.  I have seen several members of the Halifax Peace Coalition picketing outside the entrance to Irving's Halifax shipyards.  They have signs calling for the demilitarization of Canada.  No more warships, etc etc.  It's a small minority amongst the population.

At least I prefer seeing their message being shown in public instead of shouts for Sharia law etc as in England. 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2279972/Anjem-Choudary-Hate-preacher-pocketing-25-000-year-benefits-calls-fanatics-live-state.html


----------



## Retired AF Guy (17 Feb 2013)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> This man, however misguided (at least to me), is not alone amongst Canadian's.  There have always been and always will be pacifists out there.  We have them here in Halifax too.  I have seen several members of the Halifax Peace Coalition picketing outside the entrance to Irving's Halifax shipyards.  They have signs calling for the demilitarization of Canada.  No more warships, etc etc.  It's a small minority amongst the population.



Along with the pacifists, we also have people who think we shouldn't have police forces or prisons.


----------



## skyhigh10 (17 Feb 2013)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Along with the pacifists, we also have people who think we shouldn't have police forces or prisons.



I sadly use to know one of these creatures. 

Of course there are exemptions to their borderline insane utopia. If a pedophile lives next door to them or one of their family members is a victim , said person should of course be imprisoned; sorry, "rehabilitated". 

The same people who volunteer their neighbourhoods to house violent offenders who were recently paroled;  not .


----------



## Danjanou (18 Feb 2013)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Unless you are Costa Rica or Iceland.



Costa Rica disbanded it's army in 1948. The President who did it had just come to power after leading a military coup and didn't want to lose his new job the same way he gained it. These days their large heavily armed National Police force complete with naval and air wings is an armed force in all but name.


----------



## 57Chevy (18 Feb 2013)

...and although Iceland has no standing army;

 Military of Iceland


----------



## The_Falcon (19 Feb 2013)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> ...and although Iceland has no standing army;
> 
> Military of Iceland



I am aware, a few of the ICRU people work in the same location I do.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Oct 2014)

for Whiskey 601: While I agree in principle with most of your prescriptions, eliminating the CAF essentially means eliminating the Canadian State. While the current rendition of the CAF is ineffective and even rather ineffectual, the purpose of the State is to defend the rights and property of the citizens, so an armed force of some sort is essential (in practice, the West has developed the concept of the State having _two_ armed forces, one for confronting external threats [the Military] and a second one for confronting criminal activity [the Police]. In the current world, the two functions are blending as international criminal activity and terrorism straddle these divides).

What is really needed is the political will to rebuild the Armed Forces to a point where they can effectively manage their resources and provide the ability to protect Canadians against external threats, something sadly that _none_ of the 19 registered federal parities in Canada seem inclined to do.

for Thehare: The assumption that the sub prim mortgage crash was a function of unregulated capitalism is entirely false. The subprime crash was and is a marvellous example of _regulatory failure_, where State intervention in markets distorted information and incentives, leading to the crash (the explanation can be considered like the game where you remove pieces from a stack until it topples, the first piece to be removed was the need for proper credit checks when the "Community Reinvestment Act" was passed by the Carter Administration. the problem accelerated when the Clinton administration began enforcing the act, promising to levy huge fines on banks which insisted on only giving loans to creditworthy applicants, while incentivizing bad behaviour by using "Fannie Mae" and "Freddy Mac" and their implied backing by Federal funds to buy sub prime mortgages and mortgage instruments from banks. If you were a banker, the choice was to face fines and financial ruin if you applied proper credit practices, while gaining revenue and bonus payments by flouting good practice. People follow incentives).

As a checksum to this argument, consider that in the age of "Free Banking", when banks could print and issue their own money and their credit base was only as wide as their performing loan portfolio; depressions and recessions were very short and over very quickly: banks which failed their fiduciary duties failed and other ones rose to take their place, and there was no p[ossibility of any bank of financial institution becoming "too big to fail". When the "Fed" was instituted in 1913, this pattern ended, and the Great Depression lasted a decade because the "New Dealers" refused to let the market clear. The continuing global turmoil (essentially a recession that no one will admit to) is a result of a "gentleman's agreement" between virtually all of the OECD to inflate the money supply and prevent the market(s) from clearing.


----------



## Cloud Cover (18 Oct 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> for Whiskey 601: While I agree in principle with most of your prescriptions, eliminating the CAF essentially means eliminating the Canadian State. While the current rendition of the CAF is ineffective and even rather ineffectual, the purpose of the State is to defend the rights and property of the citizens, so an armed force of some sort is essential (in practice, the West has developed the concept of the State having _two_ armed forces, one for confronting external threats [the Military] and a second one for confronting criminal activity [the Police]. In the current world, the two functions are blending as international criminal activity and terrorism straddle these divides).



I disagree with your conclusion that the state will be eliminated, they still have a monopoly on the legal use of violence to compel compliance by the citizenry. The CAF simply cannot be rehabilitated without a complete reset, and again, for 20+ billion, we can get better for our money spent elsewhere or better yet, not spent at all. Unless the government has a plan to build a force capable of taking on and forcing out the interests of the current dominant third party and/or any other party which can militarily overwhelm us, the issue cannot be solved because our culture will not allow it. There's no point in having a military force of 60,000 where only a few thousand are actually capable of fighting and surely dying trying to protect the place. Forget it, the matter is long past recovery. Prove me wrong on that. We have more majors and colonels than infantrymen, more commands than battalions, and numerically just about as many generals/flag rank dudes as we do actual combat ships and aircraft, and the average age of all is about the same. Ridiculous clown show writ large.     

As for the role of the State,  behold the RCMP, a paramilitary force in its own right with a well documented history of using as much force as they deem necessary in any situation (or airport), to which an extra 2 billion can do the trick nicely, thank you very much.   An even better prescription for internal security is increased enforced deportation of migrants with malicious intentions, stripping of passports to Canadians participating in terrorism overseas, [ie make these people stateless with no right of repatriation], and writing _ex post facto cheques _to private third parties to kill off specific foreign individuals who threaten the country enough to alarm the government, who can then blanket such cheques under the thirty year rule for secrecy. 

Cheers.

edit: Mods- maybe this part of the discussion needs to be split off and added to "Is it time to disband the Canadian Armed Forces"      https://army.ca/forums/threads/109428.25.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Oct 2014)

It's an interesting prospect. There is a tiny handful of countries without armed forces. They rely upon a paramilitary police force and the good will of neighbours. (It helps if you'r a remote island, too.) I fully agree with whiskey601 that the 21st century CF looks like a bad, cruel joke ... but, then, so do the armed forces of rather a lot of countries, some of which consider themselves to be global powers.

I think there is a choice for real _Conservatives_: rethink the need for armed forces (but spend on a bigger, better RCMP) or spend enough to make the CF a credible, effective force ~ 2% of GDP as a WAG.


----------



## Cloud Cover (18 Oct 2014)

to be clear, I think little of those islands. I am suggesting we get a reality check or carry on and do something useful and effective; none of this   "neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation" type of thing. As I sated above, we can write a small cheque and have anyone that needs to be killed, killed. It's a free country, after all....


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Oct 2014)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> As I sated above, we can write a small cheque and have anyone that needs to be killed, killed. It's a free country, after all....



Funny you should say that, using a bag full of money to get what we want has traditionally been the Canadian way of doing business  ;D

My Dutch ancestors would all be very proud  :nod:


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2014)

The notion of doing without _government_ owned military forces was the norm in late medieval and renaissance Europe, well into  the 18th century, in fact. Even when the state (monarch) 'owned' armed forces (as English kings and queens 'owned' a navy) they were not above renting it out to serve under civilian _contractors_.












Drake, Raleigh and Gilbert were all, as often as not, "private military contractors" in today;'s terms who led flotillas and armed bands in various enterprises that were supported and even funded by the state.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2014)

:highjack:

Imagine, just for a moment, please that a future prime minister said, "OK, that's it; we cannot afford the sort of military machine we _might_ need and the one we can afford is inefficient and ineffective, a waste of good money. Thus, effective in a few weeks we will disband the Canadian Armed Forces, regular and reserve, and the Department of National Defence. We will have a new _Department of National Security_ which will incorporate, amongst other agencies, the Canadian Border Services Agency and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police."

Now, the "new" RCMP would be much larger and would have one new _division_, something akin to the French _Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité_ (CRS) and the _Groupe d'Intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale_ (GIGN), plus much expanded air and marine divisions.

The new RCMP air division will b e interesting. In the immediate aftermath of the Prime Minister's shocking announcement about disbanding the CF the US Ambassador would have come to call. "We respect your right to do as you think best, Prime Minister, in pursuing your national _strategy_ for effective and efficient government but we must remind you that you have an _obligation_ to help us protect our _strategic deterrent_; that's the main reason NORAD is here. If you're not going to have an air force then we must insist that we have a couple of sovereign bases in Canada ~ say at Cold Lake and Goose Bay and the absolute right to overfly Canada whenever we need to do so." But the PM will be ready for him; "No need, Mr Ambassador," he will say, we will still buy F-35s, the RCMP will fly them out of our current bases at Cold Lake and Bagotville, and we will replace out LRPA fleet, too to continue to provide _integrated_, continental support there, too. Our RCMP marine divisions will have new, fast corvettes to participate in regional anti-smuggling operations, including in the Caribbean, and it will have a flotilla of armed Polar 8 icebreakers, too. We'll meet our continental responsibilities." "What about NATO?" the US Ambassador will ask. "We will stay in, in a similar mode to Iceland."

There are issues, of course, like: who helps out in floods, etc, and what happens when we, as a nation, _need_ to take some action in some remote, dark, dirty place, far, far from Canada? Shall we hire foreign 'contractor' to do our dirty work? Shall we allow 'private military contractors' to exist in Canada, to have 'bases' here?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (19 Oct 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> :highjack:
> 
> Imagine, just for a moment, please that a future prime minister said, "OK, that's it; we cannot afford the sort of military machine we _might_ need and the one we can afford is inefficient and ineffective, a waste of good money. Thus, effective in a few weeks we will disband the Canadian Armed Forces, regular and reserve, and the Department of National Defence. We will have a new _Department of National Security_ which will incorporate, amongst other agencies, the Canadian Border Services Agency and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police."
> 
> ...



It's actually a really interesting proposition and I think it's one that a surprising number of Canadians would opt for if they were given the choice.

I get the feeling that many Canadians actually have a very isolationist viewpoint and would be happy if we just locked the borders up and stayed at home.  A common theme I am seeing is "what's going on over there is terrible and someone needs to put a stop to it but that someone is definitely not going to be me".

In my mind, it's the equivalent of being witness to a case of domestic violence and then choosing to do absolutely nothing about it, all the while abdicating ourselves of any real responsibility by saying "not my business!"

We're a country full of sheep.  We have a few sheep dogs but not enough to make any real difference.  Luckily there's a mountain pass that's covered by a glacier between us and the wolves, how long before that glacier melts though?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Oct 2014)

Brought over the conversation from another similar thread and merged it here.
Bruce


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Oct 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... "What about NATO?" the US Ambassador will ask. "We will stay in, *in a similar mode to Iceland*." .... what happens when we, as a nation, _need_ to take some action in some remote, dark, dirty place, far, far from Canada? Shall we hire foreign 'contractor' to do our dirty work? Shall we allow 'private military contractors' to exist in Canada, to have 'bases' here?


If we're going to adopt an Icelandic _military_ footprint (i.e., having someone ELSE do at least some of the work), I'm guessing that would have to be preceded by an Icelandic _foreign policy/engagement_ footprint - if the government thinks we need less "bang", or a very different kind of "bang", it stands to reason it would have to either 1)  reduce it's international ambitions re: where "bang" can be applied, or 2)  offer help outside the "bang" envelope.

Still, interesting concept "gendarme-erizing" the CF to make it a hyper-police force.  Hate to have to sort out uniforms, buttons and bows, though  >


----------



## Haggis (19 Oct 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Still, interesting concept "gendarme-erizing" the CF to make it a hyper-police force.  Hate to have to sort out uniforms, buttons and bows, though  >



The RCMP and CBSA already have a pips like rank structure for their officers/managers. The RCMP have an NCO rank structure (CBSA doesn't).  Merging the heraldry of the organizations (as was done with the creation of the CBSA) would be a nightmare.


----------



## mad dog 2020 (19 Oct 2014)

Didn't get through all the pages, but it appears that some will build an empire for personal advancement and sometimes at the expense of another organization.
We can be like the States with multiple organizations that overlap and compete for funding at a cost of isolation for survival and no co-operation for a common goal?
HQs for all units can be very expensive. 
Maybe absorb the Coast Guard into the Navy and reduce coasts of Adm and training. CG wants guns and be armed?
CBSA absorbed by RCMP. Good place to post people who need a break from the road?
Be like the California Sheriffs Dept absorb Corrections Canada into the RCMP as a spinoff. 
Stop EMPIRE BUILDING!!!!!


----------



## eliminator (19 Oct 2014)

mad dog 2020 said:
			
		

> Maybe absorb the Coast Guard into the Navy and reduce coasts of Adm and training. CG wants guns and be armed?
> CBSA absorbed by RCMP. Good place to post people who need a break from the road?
> Be like the California Sheriffs Dept absorb Corrections Canada into the RCMP as a spinoff.



There's a bit on that issue here if anyone wants to read...

http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/The%20Canadian%20Navy%20and%20Coast%20Guard.pdf


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2014)

mad dog 2020: I started this tangent with a challenge to look at a long, agonizing list of federal government departments and agencies. I posited that on could cut, say, ⅓ of them and things would actually work better. whiskey601 took up by tongue in cheek challenge and produced a wonderful list (which has disappeared!) that cut more than ¾ of them, I think, including DND and the CF.

That got me thinking about the _evolution_ of the modern nation state. Today we take it more or less for granted that one of the first duties of the state is to defend itself. That wsn't always the case, in fact, until the 17th century, the _state_ consisted, generally, of the sovereign who, normally, did have a small, private military force to defend him/herself and his/her property and several notables, _magnates_, nobles, some richer than the sovereign, who also had private armies that could be loaned to the monarch to defend the geographic expression of the state when the monarch and the notables agreed it needed defending. Most warships and companies of soldiers were in private hands from the fall of the Roman Empire until midway through the 17th century, including in China. The modern state's _monopoly_ on armed force is a very recent notion.

Now, the important thing is RoyalDrew's comment, above, in which he says that, "It's actually a really interesting proposition and I think it's one that a surprising number of Canadians would opt for if they were given the choice." I agree with him ... and it's not just Canadians, either. Many, many (likely most) Europeans would happily disband their armed forces.

The nature of recent wars shows that _"non-state actors"_ are major participants ... it makes me wonder if the modern state's _monopoly_ on armed forces is real, after all.

It seems to me that some states can _disarm_, if they are willing to 'upgun' their police and accept a reduced capability to act outside of their borders OR hire private contractors to act one their behalf.

http://www.aegisworld.com/
http://www.controlrisks.com/
https://www.academi.com/
etc, etc, etc


----------



## Ostrozac (19 Oct 2014)

Just to tackle this one piece at a time, personally, I'd love to see formed police units, on the French model, as a standing part of the RCMP. These would be the lead on flood relief, Ground SAR, G20 security and the next Oka crisis, rather than our current model of taking an infantry battalion, stripping it of its heavy weapons and vehicles, and assigning it domestic security tasks, hoping for the best. These units wouldn't necessarily be a full career path, just something that RCMP members transition in and out of.

They would also be available for CivPol duties, which will probably be growing, as the RCMP now seem to be the Canadian lead for UN peacekeeping (there are 34 Canadian military on UN peacekeeping duty this month, and 84 Canadian police).

Taking away the IRU, TBG and ARCG tasks from the Canadian Forces would be at least a statement that the Canadian Army is strictly an expeditionary warfare tool. The next question would follow, what kind of expeditionary wars?


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Oct 2014)

Something along this vein was looked into by Treasury Board in the early to mid 90's.  It was called the FLEUR or Federal Law Enforcement Under Review.  They (TB) correctly identified that there were numerous instances of duplication of LE at the Federal level (RCMP, Federal Fisheries, Customs-Immigration (now CBSA), Corrections Canada, Military Police) to name a few.  Many of these entities could easily have been brought under one umbrella (RCMP was the thought) and delivery of services could be streamlined with the expected results of cost savings and greater efficiency at the end of the day.  Why it didn't go further than it did, I cannot say.  But those of us whom I worked with at the time were all for it and did hope for it's implementation.

While I expect there would be a chorus today of left leaning voices (and maybe some right) whom would hail such a thought of say changing the CF to a RCMP delivery system. I expect, however, their happiness would swiftly evaporate at seeing the CF go bye-bye and a more militaristic police force come into being, especially after such recent events as Ferguson.  The left doesn't like the thought of police with cadpat uniforms and rifles etc if the howls of conspiracy and indignation from that quarter are to be interpreted correctly.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Oct 2014)

soccerplayer131 said:
			
		

> 3) What would happen if Canada went back to combat? If this happened today, and tomorrow Parliament decides to send ground troops to fight ISIS, how would that be done? Does the Constitution allow people considered Peace Officers under the Criminal Code to participate in combat missions as LEOs? Would this weaken the national security, by not having dedicated, combat-ready troops, specializing in an array of ops?


And that brings back the point of:  if government wants a "smaller bayonet", so to speak, government also has to live with the fact that it may not be able to conduct "combat" ops as we know them now.

On the other hand, there's also recent examples of gendarmes working in combat environments (Italy in Iraq, for example), so it's not impossible, but different rules would have to be drawn up and different jobs may have to be undertaken.

Contrary to the buzz-word peddlers out there, you can't _always_ do the same or more with less.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2014)

soccerplayer131 said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> 3) What would happen if Canada went back to combat? If this happened today, and tomorrow Parliament decides to send ground troops to fight ISIS, how would that be done?
> 
> ...




We send these guys?






Private military contractors

After all, it's what Elizabeth I did when she needed to fight the Spanish ...


----------



## George Wallace (19 Oct 2014)

Or perhaps these guys:

German Motorcycle Club members join Dutch Bikers in fight against ISIS


----------



## a_majoor (19 Oct 2014)

Very thought provoking ideas here.

Amalgamating the various police and quasi police security agencies may or may not deliver efficiencies; remember the merging of various cities to create the GTA was supposed to eliminate duplication and save costs, but in the end all that happened was every civil servant in the various pre GTA cities ended up getting the same pay and benefits as Toronto (i.e. the highest), and without very much ion the way of reductions. Be careful what you wish for.

Private military contractors also have plusses and minuses; the first and most obvious is their resources are nowhere near that of a Nation State (no private entity could afford to buy C-17's, for example), so we may end up with lots of fragmented capabilities (although when talking about today's CAF there would not be much of a noticeable difference). High end military equipment and support needed to take on need peer opponents will be lacking. Even Sir Francis Drake could only muster up a handful of ships, Phillip II dispatched 130 ships from Spain to start, and they were expected to pick up an additional fleet of landing craft. Interestingly enough, Elizabeth 1 could muster a fleet of her own, and privateers like Drake apparently only provided 12 of the 200 ships of Elizabeth's fleet.

So there are a lot of variables to examine here, and I suspect that many of the proposed COA's will have negative second and third order effects. OTOH it is more than past time to take a serious look at Canada's defense.


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Oct 2014)

Again, I would think it should be kept simple. No peacekeeping, no uniformed armed participation whatsoever outside of our borders by the RCMP type force either. If someone, or some people, are enough of a threat that it rises to be a concern of the Canadian government alone, and to no other government, then we quietly pay somebody to kill them, it is simple as that. If the bad guys are a threat to other countries, then let them deal with it and we can send a token cheque. We spent tens of billions on Afghanistan, lost too many good people when maybe what we should have done was simply funded the first billion worth of smart bombs dropped over there by the country that will never give up their right to bomb anyone, anywhere. We could have done that in retribution for the murder of our own people and been done with it. 

Put all of the past polices, desires, responsibility to protect, being a good alliance member and all the other militaristic equipment, logistics, employment and other wishes in the closet for this thought experiment. Over the years, I have become more and more concerned that as a country, we have overspent beyond reason for what we have today, and I have absolutely no doubt that the situation will never rectify itself except by a complete paradigm shift that completely disrupts 20th century modalities of state actions under the guise of national defence. 

National Security is a different matter, I am all for enhanced intelligence services of all kinds, the introduction of a very lethal mandate without any geographical limitations whatsoever, and laws that allow the quick and firm dislocation of internal security threats by sending those people on their way to some place that will take them and if the ocean bottom is their new home, too bad for them.  

As to the issue of disaster response etc, in all seriousness what real capability exists right now that could not be assumed by a non government entity that has a license to use drones for surveillance and reconnaissance? Our 4 C-17's and handful of helicopters will not really make that much difference when Vancouver splits into pieces and falls into the ocean.


----------



## Wanderingaimlessly (19 Oct 2014)

Here is my $0.02.

We need an armed force as a nation to maintain credibility internationally and to claim sovereignty over our territory.  If we are unhappy with having to pay for it, we can always ask to become part of the US and have them take over the job.


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Oct 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> :highjack:
> 
> Now, the "new" RCMP would be much larger and would have one new _division_, something akin to the French _Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité_ (CRS) and the _Groupe d'Intervention de la Gendarmerie Nationale_ (GIGN), plus much expanded air and marine divisions.
> 
> ...



I would let the US take over the bases and let their money fund/fuel the communities that surround them. Perhaps they might let Canadians join their armed forces and serve in Canada, but if they don't, that is no big deal either. If they wanted to, just like the Russians, they could overfly Canada every day right now, and we would seriously try to stop them (we never did stop the Russians during the cold war, did we?) so what is the difference?   

And the RCMP would probably need very little, but to be more precise, re-role the JTF and NBCD teams from CANSOFCOM into the RCMP, and maybe a couple of helo-equipped OPV on each coast and up north.


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Oct 2014)

Wanderingaimlessly said:
			
		

> Here is my $0.02.
> 
> We need an armed force as a nation to maintain credibility internationally and to claim sovereignty over our territory.[These two points are true, and Canada is failing at both and continues to reinforce failure with more failure] If we are unhappy with having to pay for it, we can always ask to become part of the US and have them take over the job. [Arguably in the main part, the US already has taken over the job?]


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (19 Oct 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Very thought provoking ideas here.
> 
> Amalgamating the various police and quasi police security agencies may or may not deliver efficiencies; remember the merging of various cities to create the GTA was supposed to eliminate duplication and save costs, but in the end all that happened was every civil servant in the various pre GTA cities ended up getting the same pay and benefits as Toronto (i.e. the highest), and without very much ion the way of reductions. Be careful what you wish for.
> 
> ...



They don't have the resources of a Nation State now but what would happen if Nation States got out of the Military business?  Lets not pretend that Nation States "Monopoly of Violence" has existed forever.  It was only in the 18th and 19th centuries that States started maintaining large standing armies.  Before then, warfare was dominated by mercenary forces.  We are at a similar junction in history right now to what existed during the Wars of the Italian Renaissance.  States have been downsizing their armies since the end of the Cold War; however, the operational tempo hasn't decreased, quite the opposite it's increased.

If States were to disband their armed forces and the only way to fill the gap created was with PMC's, than the capability and size of PMC's would increase exponentially.  PMC's can be every bit as sophisticated as a modern military force.  Executive Outcomes in the 1990's was able to deploy units fully kitted out with tanks, apc's and attack helicopters as well as provide their own logistics and achieved success against a far larger rebel force in Sierra Leone after a British Military Operation in the country had already failed.  They also accomplished this at a far lesser cost.  So to say PMC's couldn't do the job isn't necessarily correct, if the demand was there someone would rise up to meet it.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Oct 2014)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> If someone, or some people, are enough of a threat that it rises to be a concern of the Canadian government alone, and to no other government, then we quietly pay somebody to kill them ....


Or, on a larger scale, pay another country already doing the killing a ton of money to help them carry on.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Oct 2014)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I would let the US take over the bases and let their money fund/fuel the communities that surround them. Perhaps they might let Canadians join their armed forces and serve in Canada, but if they don't, that is no big deal either.



Rerole the CAF as Marines and create a new Branch called the Canadian Armed Forces.    ;D


----------



## a_majoor (19 Oct 2014)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> They don't have the resources of a Nation State now but what would happen if Nation States got out of the Military business?  Lets not pretend that Nation States "Monopoly of Violence" has existed forever.  It was only in the 18th and 19th centuries that States started maintaining large standing armies.  Before then, warfare was dominated by mercenary forces.  We are at a similar junction in history right now to what existed during the Wars of the Italian Renaissance.  States have been downsizing their armies since the end of the Cold War; however, the operational tempo hasn't decreased, quite the opposite it's increased.
> 
> If States were to disband their armed forces and the only way to fill the gap created was with PMC's, than the capability and size of PMC's would increase exponentially.  PMC's can be every bit as sophisticated as a modern military force.  Executive Outcomes in the 1990's was able to deploy units fully kitted out with tanks, apc's and attack helicopters as well as provide their own logistics and achieved success against a far larger rebel force in Sierra Leone after a British Military Operation in the country had already failed.  They also accomplished this at a far lesser cost.  So to say PMC's couldn't do the job isn't necessarily correct, if the demand was there someone would rise up to meet it.



Without trying to sound contentious, how would a PMC like Executive Outcomes be able to operate in Canada? They simply would not be able to get permits or have the ability to purchase military equipment of any quantity or quality, and even if they would be a boon to any former military base they settled into (needing ranges and training areas to keep up to snuff) I can imagine the fuss that would be put up against them. Hell, there is a guy who pickets the Meaford training base near Owen Sound because of the "excessive noise" (even on days when there is no training going on), and like ERC tells us, support for the actual, home grown volunteer Canadian Armed Forces is only a millimetre deep; there will probably be under constant attack from "activists" (most of whom would never stop and think about who would do the job then?).

Sending out trained teams of killers is _one_ way to deal with _one_ type of threat (read George Jonas book "Vengeance", about how the Israelis dealt with "Black September" after the 1973 Munich Massacre), but consider the evolved geopolitical situation we are living in now. We will need a means to deal with terrorist threats, "Unrestricted Warfare" as practiced by China and various forms of "4GW" directed at Canada and the West.

I will only say that *we* really need to have a very in depth discussion on a national level about how Canada defends itself and its national interests, but neither of the two major political parties seem prepared to do this, and there is no general interest from the Canadian public either.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (19 Oct 2014)

It would be interesting to see what sort of legal architecture would develop to constrain the activities of PMCs...


----------



## GR66 (19 Oct 2014)

Maybe it doesn't have to be a case of the current CF model vs. NO CF at all.  Maybe another option would be to simply do a major rethink of what the CF is meant to do and how large it needs to be.

Currently we have several Divisional HQ's in the CF but realistically it's been known since the 50's that we can't honestly sustain a combat Division in high intensity combat.  It would stretch our capacity to maintain a fully self-contained Brigade Group in combat without having to rely on our allies for important support services (CAS, AD, supply of munitions, etc.).  However we maintain the facade of a Corps/Divisional sized army with the organizational structure (including the Reserves) and overhead to go with it.

How much less would the CF cost if we cut it back to a series of core capabilities that are required for the protection of Canadian territory (in all honesty that really means surveillance/protecting Canada and the US from asymmetrical attacks (since no nation has the military capability to actually invade North America with conventional forces) and protecting the nuclear deterrent forces of the United States.

Would a CF that has an Air Force consisting of good Maritime Patrol assets and enough 4th Generation fighters to shoot down Russian long-range bombers conducting a 2nd Strike against the US, an RCN consisting of a reasonable number of Maritime Helicopter carrying Corvettes with Mine Counter-Measure capabilities to patrol our waters and protect US supply ships supporting an American surge, and a Canadian Army capable of deploying a politically token single combined arms Battle Group or some special forces really be much less of a contribution than we can muster now?


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2014)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> It would be interesting to see what sort of legal architecture would develop to constrain the activities of PMCs...





That was a problem in 14th century Italy, too ... one they failed to solve.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (19 Oct 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Without trying to sound contentious, how would a PMC like Executive Outcomes be able to operate in Canada? They simply would not be able to get permits or have the ability to purchase military equipment of any quantity or quality, and even if they would be a boon to any former military base they settled into (needing ranges and training areas to keep up to snuff) I can imagine the fuss that would be put up against them. Hell, there is a guy who pickets the Meaford training base near Owen Sound because of the "excessive noise" (even on days when there is no training going on), and like ERC tells us, support for the actual, home grown volunteer Canadian Armed Forces is only a millimetre deep; there will probably be under constant attack from "activists" (most of whom would never stop and think about who would do the job then?).


  

No contention required, here is my rebuttal:

They wouldn't need to operate in Canada, they could be based offshore and Canada could pay them when we required their service.  They are mercenaries after all, so who really cares where they came from or how they conduct their training and operations, as long as they are willing to get the job done with the money we give them.  As for equipment, well with all States disbanding their armed forces, getting surplus military equipment of a high quality shouldn't be too much of a problem.  If a ragtag group like IS can get their hands on GPS Guided Artillery, Abrams Tanks and Up-Armoured Humvee's, it shouldn't be too difficult for a mercenary group supported by a legitimate government to acquire state-of-the-art military hardware.  With regards to not being able to get a permit to operate in Canada, one of the largest Private Security Companies in the world, Garda World, is headquartered in Montreal so the PMC business is already firmly entrenched in Canada.

As for the political fallout from using mercenaries/PMC's/PSC's/whatever the latest buzzword is, I believe it would be minimal.  Canadians are isolationist, we all think that what is going on outside our borders is bad and that something needs to be done about it; however, we don't think we should be the ones that have to do something.  With this in mind, we would be quite content to sit on our behinds, drink a beer and watch someone else do the heavy lifting.  We are even willing to pay big dollars to make sure we don't need to get our hands dirty.

Our mining companies already use PMC's extensively, just google "Canadian Mining Companies in the Congo" or "Coltan Wars" and you'll uncover a plethora of information.



> Sending out trained teams of killers is _one_ way to deal with _one_ type of threat (read George Jonas book "Vengeance", about how the Israelis dealt with "Black September" after the 1973 Munich Massacre), but consider the evolved geopolitical situation we are living in now. We will need a means to deal with terrorist threats, "Unrestricted Warfare" as practiced by China and various forms of "4GW" directed at Canada and the West.



This is where our increased investment in the State security apparatus would come in.  Domestic Terrorism isn't really a military problem anyways, it's a police force problem.  Increasing the strength of the RCMP and giving them increased powers to conduct internal security operations would achieve the effect.  Also, if we want to deal with China and 4GW, we would be better served by significantly beefing up our intelligence capabilities, both offensive and defensive.  Triple the size of CSEC and CSIS et voila, problem solved.



> I will only say that *we* really need to have a very in depth discussion on a national level about how Canada defends itself and its national interests, but neither of the two major political parties seem prepared to do this, and there is no general interest from the Canadian public either.



I absolutely agree with this last statement.


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Oct 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> That was a problem in 14th century Italy, too ... one they failed to solve.



And here is a place where Canada could lead... goodness knows we have many armies of lawyers to try and figure it out.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (19 Oct 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> That was a problem in 14th century Italy, too ... one they failed to solve.



This is where the water would get murky but in any event, if we give up our ability to conduct military operations externally should we really have a say in how they are conducted?  If we actually disbanded our Armed Forces and gave up our "Monopoly of Violence," I don't think we would have any legal basis to tell a PMC how they should be conducting their operations.

It would be kind of like a retired person coming back to tell the organization he used to work for 20 years ago how they should be conducting their business even though he hasn't got a clue how anything works anymore.  I think our Air Force is trying something like this right now  >


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Oct 2014)

to add to what Royal Drew states above, Canada could take the position that the law of contract in private international law applies as between the Crown and the PMC or other form of triggerman. It would be a simple matter of drafting to impose compliance with the established laws of armed conflict as a contractual duty on the PMC. Of course, in the absence of a declaration of war, there is the minor issue of infringing the rights of others specifically the right to life and security of the person. Trudeau strikes from the grave.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Oct 2014)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> This is where our increased investment in the State security apparatus would come in.  Domestic Terrorism isn't really a military problem anyways, it's a police force problem.  Increasing the strength of the RCMP and giving them increased powers to conduct internal security operations would achieve the effect.  Also, if we want to deal with China and 4GW, we would be better served by significantly beefing up our intelligence capabilities, both offensive and defensive.  Triple the size of CSEC and CSIS et voila, problem solved.



Having worked a lot with police forces who were supposed to be the 'front line' against terrorism, I am all for more military involvement in this game.

At least the friggin' cordon won't go home at the end of shift due to union rules. You can also trust a 24 year old NCO to properly secure a prisoner vs. a 58 year old donut slayer.  :


----------



## Ostrozac (20 Oct 2014)

Wanderingaimlessly said:
			
		

> Here is my $0.02.
> 
> We need an armed force as a nation to maintain credibility internationally and to claim sovereignty over our territory.



Iceland doesn't have armed forces. Same thing with Costa Rica, Haiti and Panama. All are internationally acknowledged sovereign states. Iceland is even a member of NATO.

So it is possible.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (20 Oct 2014)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Having worked a lot with police forces who were supposed to be the 'front line' against terrorism, I am all for more military involvement in this game.
> 
> At least the friggin' cordon won't go home at the end of shift due to union rules. You can also trust a 24 year old NCO to properly secure a prisoner vs. a 58 year old donut slayer.  :



Yes this would be a problem but it's why we would also need to change the way we view policing.  If we were to go this route, I would envision the RCMP morphing into something more along the lines of the French Gendarmerie or Italian Carabinieri.  The challenge with this would be the inevitable infringement on civil rights that would probably occur as a result.  If we don't want to pay the bill for a military, then we need to find some other way to secure the State.  That would mean police forces with a wider mandate and increased power.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2014)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Yes this would be a problem but it's why we would also need to change the way we view policing.  If we were to go this route, I would envision the RCMP morphing into something more along the lines of the French Gendarmerie or Italian Carabinieri.  The challenge with this would be the inevitable infringement on civil rights that would probably occur as a result.  If we don't want to pay the bill for a military, then we need to find some other way to secure the State.  That would mean police forces with a wider mandate and increased power.




Right now we spend _about_ 1% of GDP on our national defence _insurance policy_.* My _guesstimate_ of what an efficient and effective national defence costs is about 2% of GDP,** sustained at that level for generations. That may be ~ certainly is _circa_ 2015 ~ more than Canadians are willing to pay. They do not see a near term military threat to their peace and prosperity so they are, understandably, unwilling to spend more to counter something that they do not believe exists.

RoyalDrew made the point. yesterday, that some (many?) Canadians would actually support disarming the country. I _suspect_ more Canadians favour disbanding the military than support doubling the defence budget.

That's the dilemma. As whiskey601 has said, in 'pure' economic/management terms the CF, indeed all of DND, is a waste of time and money. We, at the national level, could do a bare minimum to protect ouyrselves in our homeland for a lot less money. We can debate the merits of _contracting_ for defence services, including 'paying' for defence by sacrificing some sovereignty to e.g. the USA, or being less cost effective but more _independent_ by doing more for ourselves, even at the risk of sacrificing economic 'purity,' but the fact is that we do not get 'value for money' from the current defence system.

The problem is not with the men and women in the CF, not with 95% of them anyway, they have shown, in battle, that they are the equal to the very best in the world. Our ships, units and squadrons can all say, _"Nulli Secundus."_ The same can be said for most of the bureaucrats in DND, be they defence scientists, clerks, intelligence analysts or drivers. The problem lies elsewhere: with governments who do not want to talk about the real threats that the world in the 21st century poses to Canada; with voters who, lacking real information, put their national defence at the bottom of their spending priority list (right alongside symphony orchestras and the National Ballet); and with a lazy media that, through its own ignorance, doesn't challenge the government on _strategic_ issues because there is no advertising to be sold by holding the government to account.

_____
*   We spend a lot more than that for other kinds of insurance. Consider, just for example, our "free" provincial health insurance ... it costs the 'average' Canadian $3,500 to $5,000+ for 'free' provincial health insurance which, unless you make about $400,000 per years is a damned site more than 1% of your, personal, gross domstic product. Look at your annual auto insurance rates, Ontarians, who pay the highest rates, pay an *average* of $1,500+ per year which, unless you make $150,000 per year (i.e. you are a Colonel or above in the CF or an officer above Superintendent rank in the RCMP) is also more than 1% of your own, personal, GDP.

** Which is a lot less that e.g. the USA or Singapore pay and measurably less than what Britain, France and South Korea spend. I would want to see us spend, and I am _certain_ we can afford, as a % of GDP, something between what Poland and Taiwan pay.


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Oct 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Right now we spend _about_ 1% of GDP on our national defence _insurance policy_.* My _guesstimate_ of what an efficient and effective national defence costs is about 2% of GDP,** sustained at that level for generations.




I would suggest that before there is even a single extra dime invested, all the inefficiencies, (bloated HQ's, ridiculous procurement processes, screwed up training system etc.) need to be dealt with. And because pragmatically speaking we all know they never will be dealt with in a serious manner, the final breaking point seems to be at hand and nobody in government wants to admit it. There is currently only a perverted fiscal management culture and some sort of circus like defence expenditure program in place.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (20 Oct 2014)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I would suggest that before there is even a single extra dime invested, all the inefficiencies, (bloated HQ's, ridiculous procurement processes, screwed up training system etc.) need to be dealt with. And because pragmatically speaking we all know they never will be dealt with in a serious manner, the final breaking point seems to be at hand and nobody in government wants to admit it. *There is currently only a perverted fiscal management culture and some sort of circus like defence expenditure program in place. *


----------



## GR66 (20 Oct 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Right now we spend _about_ 1% of GDP on our national defence _insurance policy_.* My _guesstimate_ of what an efficient and effective national defence costs is about 2% of GDP,** sustained at that level for generations. That may be ~ certainly is _circa_ 2015 ~ more than Canadians are willing to pay. They do not see a near term military threat to their peace and prosperity so they are, understandably, unwilling to spend more to counter something that they do not believe exists.
> 
> ...



Has the definition of what is "defence" spending changed in the nuclear age?  Does it still mean having large enough conventional armies to defend or at least deter attack on our sovereign territory by the conventional forces of other nation states?  As long as the "collective West" maintains a credible nuclear deterrent is there really a existential military threat to the US or any of its core allies posed by any other nation state? No matter how overmatched we may be by the conventional forces of any other nation state does our nuclear "big stick" ultimately trump whatever advantage they may have so long as we are willing to use those weapons to prevent conventional military defeat and loss of our own territory?

Certainly non-state actors in possession of WMD's pose a real threat to our countries because the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction does not work when the enemy has no State of their own that risks retaliatory destruction.  However traditional conventional armies may not be the right/best response to these groups anyway.

Does this mean that really all that we need "traditional" conventional militaries for is to fight non-existential regional threats to our economies and political will?  When dealing with non-state threats do then things like development aid, training of foreign militaries, enhanced monitoring of international monetary transactions to stem the flow of money to extremist groups, beefed-up customs monitoring and inspections, domestic law enforcement surveillance on radical groups, etc. all become "Defence Spending"?  

I personally think that we SHOULD maintain a credible conventional military force despite our great fortune of living under the protective umbrella of the United States.  I think there are threats in the world that can and should be met with traditional military power and I think it's a much more powerful political statement of will to send your own children to pay the required price in blood than to sub-contract the work to private military contractors.  That being said, I think that many aspects of our defence can be better met with less than full conventional military forces.  Do these expenses (Coast Guard, DFAIT, CBSA, CSIS, CSE, RCMP, DFO, etc., etc.) count as part of the mythical 2% we need to spend?  

I think that the realities of a globalized and nuclear world have fundamentally changed the way the great powers compete with each other.  Does every major power having nuclear retaliation in their back pocket now mean that no great state will face the threat of conventional military defeat and loss of their ultimate sovereignty?  Is great power conflict now shifted to shifting economic and regional political domination...or even internal subversion as we're seeing in places like Ukraine, Syria and Iraq?


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Oct 2014)

@GR66: I think all your points are valid, but none of those events are ever likely to occur, same with disbanding the armed forces- it won't happen.  There is no way to force the issue unless, say, Justin Trudeau suddenly jumps out makes this an election issue "hey people in common, I've got a great idea- let's eliminate the armed forces. Harper has made such a mess of it that it is pointless to continue."   Who can argue with the history of Harper on that point? The only way for the Cons to respond would be to refute the claim and do what? Waste more money without putting in place the shock and awe changes that are needed? What's more, even Trudeau can say "even my dad spent more than Harper", which is technically true.


----------



## GR66 (20 Oct 2014)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> @GR66: I think all your points are valid, but none of those events are ever likely to occur, same with disbanding the armed forces- it won't happen.  There is no way to force the issue unless, say, Justin Trudeau suddenly jumps out makes this an election issue "hey people in common, I've got a great idea- let's eliminate the armed forces. Harper has made such a mess of it that it is pointless to continue."   Who can argue with the history of Harper on that point? The only way for the Cons to respond would be to refute the claim and do what? Waste more money without putting in place the shock and awe changes that are needed? What's more, even Trudeau can say "even my dad spent more than Harper", which is technically true.



I honestly can't imagine a political reality where the CF could/would be disbanded.  However, as other posters have mentioned there is little appetite by Canadians in general to pay the mythical 2% of GDP that would allow us to support a "traditional" conventional, expeditionary, combined-arms military.  That unfortunately hasn't stopped us from pursuing the fantasy of structuring the CF like we DO have that type of funding.

If 1% of GDP is the reality of what Canadians are willing to spend on traditional, conventional military forces then would it not make sense to structure our military and tailor our policies to the type of military we can actually afford/be willing to pay for?

Maybe the resulting military would look very different than what we have now, but it might also be able to do the reduced tasks it would be asked to perform more efficiently.

Again, I'm not saying that this is my preference for the CF...but it may be a choice that needs to be made if the funding won't/can't change.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (20 Oct 2014)

In the Navy, we have an old trick question when qualifying Officers-of-the-day onboard ships: We asks "You are given a duty watch of eleven seaman. You are told that a 5 tons shackles has been delivered on the jetty - How do you organize your people to bring it onboard?" And the answer is you turn to your smallest member and tell to go pick it up - because shackles are rated by strength, not by their weight, and a five tons one probably weighs about two kilos.

The relevance here? Any discussion of the proper size of the CF, or its elimination, or the % of GDP* that should be spent on it is non-sensical until two questions have been answered: What are the foreseeable threats to Canadian sovereignty or interests? And, what do we want to be able to do about it? Unless we know the answer to these question, everything is pure rhetorical musing.

* p.s.: The % of GDP is a red herring: 5% of Luxembourg GDP could barely provide them with a battalion of troops with hand held weapons, while 1% of GDP for China or the US would still give them tremendous expeditionary capabilities. This idea of the "2%" is just  a NATO average figure that has been derived as an indicator of whether you are pulling your weight in relations to other members. It has since been hijacked as end-all/be-all measure of proper defence. If we were to double our budget tomorrow, but keep the current structure and organization, I bet we could barely boost frontline soldier/airmen/seaman by more than 20%. If, on the other hand, we accept that we will never need expeditionary forces beyond deployment of a combat group of 2,500 soldiers, we could today slash and greatly simplify the Army organizational structure (read HQ's and number of units) and support organization and make huge savings. Similarly, if we accepted the fact that we would not need to fight another war at sea running convoys against the large number of submarines of a near peer enemy, we could probably reorganize the Navy towards smaller, less sophisticated ships with high levels of automation and save another bundle. Do I need to talk about the Air Force, or have I made my point?

But everything begins with deciding what exactly we wish to be able to perform for ourselves.


----------



## GR66 (20 Oct 2014)

You mean like REAL Foreign Policy and Defence White Papers?  That is absolutely the very first thing that is needed...but also sadly one of the last things that is likely to happen.  Much easier to live in a fantasy world where you continue to expect the military to do what it did in WWII or Korea but only spend what you can get away with...and piss away valuable Defence dollars on a bloated structure instead of real capabilities in the meantime.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2014)

GR66 said:
			
		

> I honestly can't imagine a political reality where the CF could/would be disbanded.  However, as other posters have mentioned there is little appetite by Canadians in general to pay the mythical 2% of GDP that would allow us to support a "traditional" conventional, expeditionary, combined-arms military.  That unfortunately hasn't stopped us from pursuing the fantasy of structuring the CF like we DO have that type of funding.
> 
> If 1% of GDP is the reality of what Canadians are willing to spend on traditional, conventional military forces then would it not make sense to structure our military and tailor our policies to the type of military we can actually afford/be willing to pay for?
> 
> ...




Maybe it's time for another split and a merge with The Defence Budget thread but I think that  GR66 is on the right track.

First a few facts:

     1. Canada's defence spending has declined, quite precipitously, since 2009, from 1.4% of GDP to 1.0% of GDP in 2013 - according to World Bank data;

     2. Canada's GDP is forecast to grow by about 2.5% per year over the next five years according to TD Banks' _guesstimates_;

     3. This government, Prime Minister Harper's government, has funded DND pretty fairly on a basis of _activity_ - when the CF was engaged in operations the money flowed fairly generously to the
         elements involved; when the government wanted to cut back it did not deploy the CF on large scale operations. (It is, of course, very fair to say that starving the logistics/support base is bad policy,
         but it is politically impossible to justify high levels of defence spending when *a)* the CF is not engaged in combat operations and _*b)*_ other, popular programmes
         are being cut or, at least constrained.)

     4. It appears that the global strategic situation is worsening; and

     5. One (not insubstantial) part of the population takes an interest in foreign and defence policy and that segment is, generally _*a)*_ inclined to support the CPC or be undecided; and _*b)*_ favours an effective
         military capability.

Thus, when the budget is restored to balance, after next year, and if we have a CPC government, we *might* expect to see defence spending rise by rates higher than inflation ~ say 3 to 5% ~ per year for the next few years to, say:

_Edit to add: these figures are estimates based on the 2013 estimates, not on the 2013/14 allocations which were substantially lower and those figures are shown, in pink, on the second line._
   
          2016          2017        2018          2019          2020          2021          2022          2023          2024          2025
        * $24.0B      $25.0B    $26.5B      $28.0B     $29.5B      $31.0B      $33.0B     $35.0B       $37.0B     $39.0B *  
        *$22.0B      $23.0B    $24.5B      $26.0B     $27.5b      $29.0b      $31.0B     $32.5B       $35.0B     $37.0B *

So, now my question is: what should we, _unncomitted_ voters who are interested in foreign and defence policy, tell the government to do?

My in initial suggestions are:

     1. 'Grow' the defence budget, again, until it reaches, say, about 1.5% of GDP, by, say, 2020, or hits $40.0B and then sustain it there, allowing for inflation;

     2. Restructure the CF to make it operationally effective and cost effective, too ~ start, as a sign of 'good faith' to voters by *slashing* the command an control superstructure
        and rejuvinating the fleets and field forces; and

     3. Build long term sustainability into the permanent force. High cost units and high cost people must be there, and and *reform* the reserve forces so that they can, effectively and
         efficiently augment the permanent force as needed.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2014)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ...
> * p.s.: The % of GDP is a red herring: 5% of Luxembourg GDP could barely provide them with a battalion of troops with hand held weapons, while 1% of GDP for China or the US would still give them tremendous expeditionary capabilities. This idea of the "2%" is just  a NATO average figure that has been derived as an indicator of whether you are pulling your weight in relations to other members. It has since been hijacked as end-all/be-all measure of proper defence. If we were to double our budget tomorrow, but keep the current structure and organization, I bet we could barely boost frontline soldier/airmen/seaman by more than 20%. If, on the other hand, we accept that we will never need expeditionary forces beyond deployment of a combat group of 2,500 soldiers, we could today slash and greatly simplify the Army organizational structure (read HQ's and number of units) and support organization and make huge savings. Similarly, if we accepted the fact that we would not need to fight another war at sea running convoys against the large number of submarines of a near peer enemy, we could probably reorganize the Navy towards smaller, less sophisticated ships with high levels of automation and save another bundle. Do I need to talk about the Air Force, or have I made my point?
> 
> But everything begins with deciding what exactly we wish to be able to perform for ourselves.




I don't think that's true at all. The % of GDP is a fair and valid sign of any nation's _commitment_ to any particular policy or programme. It doesn't matter what any given % buys (although we must recognize that 2% of GDP for China buys a helluva lot more, £ for £, than 2% of GDP buys for Germany), what matters is how much each individual country can afford to spend - or, perhaps, how much it can afford to *not* spend.

Thus, for example, Israel and Singapore spend a lot on defence, as a % of GDP - and spend it fairly carefully, too, including on building a modicum of defence self sufficiency - because they live in pretty rough neighbourhoods. Germany, despite having Russia for a neighbour, spends too little because, as in Canada, they rely upon others to defend them and defence spending is politically unpopular.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Oct 2014)

The real red herring in Canada's case is trying to find a threat to justify the existence of armed forces.  We've scoured many barrels and all come to the same conclusion as Whiskey.  There isn't one.

So don't justify it on defence.  Justify it on offence. 

We exist to keep the peace overseas and help out our friends.  We do what we can.  We don't have to do anything.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Oct 2014)

Perhaps this isn't the time to disband the CAF.

That's all I have to say about that I guess.


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Oct 2014)

You are right EITS, but I would think the Mounties, CSEC and CSIS all need to step up their game. There isn't much the CAF could have done to prevent today's tragedy, but there are ways they can provide support to hopefully prevent or thwart the next attack [and surely there will be another].


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Oct 2014)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> .... the Mounties, CSEC and CSIS all need to step up their game ....


Wait for it ....


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Oct 2014)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> ... the Mounties, CSEC and CSIS all need to step up their game ...




Fair enough, but, especially in  the case of CSEC, only a few hundred people in the whole world* should ever know that their 'game' has been 'stepped up.'

_____
* And only one or two of them should ever have been elected to parliament (let's say just the prime minister, minister of justice/attorney general and leader of the opposition) and they should never know most of the details ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (21 Oct 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The real red herring in Canada's case is trying to find a threat to justify the existence of armed forces.  We've scoured many barrels and all come to the same conclusion as Whiskey.  There isn't one.
> 
> So don't justify it on defence.  Justify it on offence.
> 
> We exist to keep the peace overseas and help out our friends.  We do what we can.  We don't have to do anything.



National Defence entails more than the mere protection of one's borders from intrusion, it also entails the defence of Canadian national interests anywhere needed, which includes abroad. As war is a pursuit of diplomacy by other means, and in defence of what Canadian wish to stand for in the world and be seen to stand for, there is an expeditionary component to National defence that must exist (A good example: As founder of the Un, Canadian will not stand for wars of aggression. Thus we signed on to the Korean war and the Liberation of Koweit war, with that we could muster and in a coalition in both cases, but we did it because it was a national interest of Canada that the sanctity of borders included int he UN charter be protected).

For those who advocate just hiring out for this function, I will just say go read Machiavelli's warning about employing mercenaries in The Prince. That hasn't changed. 

A sub plot to that point (which Machiavelli could not have foreseen as state economies as we understand them didn't really exist in those days) is ERC's % of GDP argument: If the % of GDP one spends on defence matters because it is a symbol of resolve, what signal is sent to the world if you just take 2% of your GDP and pay it to the American (for instance) and tell them to defend us in exchange? In your theory, it shows our resolve to defend ourselves since it is the magical 2%, but in practice, any foe would look at it from either of two perspectives. 1) Do we think that American, as hired guns, have the resolve to defend Canada's territorial integrity to the point of taking many dead soldiers if need be? or 2) It's not Canada we have to deal with, but the US - Canada is merely the US's serf now.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Oct 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The real red herring in Canada's case is trying to find a threat to justify the existence of armed forces.  We've scoured many barrels and all come to the same conclusion as Whiskey.  There isn't one.
> 
> So don't justify it on defence.  Justify it on offence.
> 
> We exist to keep the peace overseas and help out our friends.  We do what we can.  We don't have to do anything.



I always revert back to the Fire Department analogy.  Just because the town has not seen a fire in some time, does that justify they stop funding Firefighting training, selling off the firetruck, or disbanding the Fire Department?


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Oct 2014)

Drifting even further  ff topic:  ...

I have a couple of concerns right now, things about which I am, possibly, rethinking my _established_ positions:

     First: the very nature of the nation state, itself. OGBD talks about the "sanctity of borders," a concept that, in the West, dates, really, from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, and it is a concept that
     is, indeed, enshrined in the UN Charter. I'm not so sure that the "sanctity" of borders is something that we must or even can defend. Look, just for example, at what Russia did to Ukraine. What
     would have happened to the borders of the UK is Scotland had voted 'Yes,' or to Canada's in QC voted 'Oui,' for that matter? What is happening to the borders of Iraq and Syria right now?

     Second: the nature of war. We have, again since the 17th century, come to perceive 'war' as being symmetrical: one 'side' against another; friend and foe; we and they and so on. It now
     _appears to me_ that war is between several 'sides' and allies might be both very, very temporary and ever changing, as might enemies. We do not, _it seems to me_, always know
     which side we are on.

     Third: the 'language' of war. It also _seems to me_ that we, and China, for example, speak two different languages of war: ours comes to us from Clausewitz and was, perhaps, best spoken by Roosevelt
     and George C Marshall. In our language 'war' is, eventually, a clash of forces and one side always wins. China does not appear to have believed Clausewitz and they still think Sun Tzu was right:
     'war' _might_ involve fighting and destruction but one's war aims can be achieved without fighting. I _believe_ that China _thinks_ that it is fighting World War IV right now. China doesn't want, ever,
     to engage the US in physical battles but it is happy to 'engage' in every other sphere. My _guess_ is that China is 'happy' with the way the _war_ is going; it hasn't won all the _battles_ but it _thinks_
     that it is winning enough of the important battles to, eventually, win the _war_. I am also _guessing_ that IS** war aims are less that Clausewitzian.

So, I wonder: what should Canada be doing? We have, _I believe_, _*vital interests*_ beyond our borders and we need the capacity promote and protect those interests, independent of the interests and views of others. My own, traditional response to my own concern is to demand that we have bigger, better armed forces. But, is that, really, the best use of our resources?


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Oct 2014)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Perhaps this isn't the time to disband the CAF.


While the Saint-Jean incident is pretty f**king bad, let's also be cautious about developing a military (or any capability) based on only one problem.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> I always revert back to the Fire Department analogy.  Just because the town has not seen a fire in some time, does that justify they stop funding Firefighting training, selling off the firetruck, or disbanding the Fire Department?


100% - what's being discussed (a bit, anyway) is _how much_ fire department we need, and how it would be operated.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Oct 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> 100% - what's being discussed (a bit, anyway) is _how much_ fire department we need, and how it would be operated.



That is the problem.  You can not predict what kind of fire your Fire Dept will be called out for, nor when.  Nor can one predict what equipment or training will be required to fight a fire.  Will it be a high-rise fire where you need a Ladder Truck?  Will it be a chemical plant fire where you need specialized equipment and training to fight?  Will it be a Prairie fire, a residential fire, automobile fire, etc.?  All requiring different equipment, supplies and training.   What about the other duties such as Fire Inspections or Arson investigations?  

We must be prepared for 'worse case' scenarios.  Only the imagination can perceive what those scenarios may be.  Reality, however, will dictate what measures we take to combat those scenarios.


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Oct 2014)

I think that farming off the military's responsibilities to other departments will not reduce costs. It will only change those departments into something they never were intended to become. The costs will just be shifted to OGDs who morph over time into an armed forces in fact if not in name.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Oct 2014)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ...
> ... If the % of GDP one spends on defence matters because it is a symbol of resolve, what signal is sent to the world if you just take 2% of your GDP and pay it to the American (for instance) and tell them to defend us in exchange? In your theory, it shows our resolve to defend ourselves since it is the magical 2%, but in practice, any foe would look at it from either of two perspectives. 1) Do we think that American, as hired guns, have the resolve to defend Canada's territorial integrity to the point of taking many dead soldiers if need be? or 2) It's not Canada we have to deal with, but the US - Canada is merely the US's serf now.




Excellent point. If we value our sovereignty, as defined since 1648, then _contracting out_ our national defence is, certainly, selling ourselves back into colonial status. That's why I, along with most others, have _traditionally_ insisted that we ought to have an effective military ~ but not just for 'self defence,' we also need to promote and protect our vital interests wherever they are, around the world.

However, suppose the Peace of Westphalia is outdated. Maybe we don't have to 'respect' every artificial line in the sand - acknowledging that the 49th parallel is a 'line in the sand,' too. My _sense_ of my fellow Canadians is that many (most?) of them are already willing to accept tacit quasi-colonial status for the purposes of national defence; they are willing to swap a bit of (nearly invisible in most cases) sovereignty for the 'price' of US defence guarantees. Maybe the people have already spoken.


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Oct 2014)

But Edward, I wager those same Canadians faced with the reality of foreign soldiers on our soil would lose their minds. Particularly if those soldiers were American. Saying "the Americans will protect us" and paying the price with boots on the ground are two different things.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Oct 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Excellent point. If we value our sovereignty, as defined since 1648, then _contracting out_ our national defence is, certainly, selling ourselves back into colonial status. That's why I, along with most others, have _traditionally_ insisted that we ought to have an effective military ~ but not just for 'self defence,' we also need to promote and protect our vital interests wherever they are, around the world.



Slovenia has a paramilitary force, small army and small navy, but relies on Italy to patrol its airspace.  Although we have the RCAF, the USAF is also interested in patrolling the Arctic regions.  Contracting out defence to another nation is not unheard of.

My question is:  If we divert our 2% GDP to the US for our defence, what guarantee do we have that they will maintain their current level of GDP contributions to defence; or would they look at our contracting them to do our defence as an opportunity to cut their own budget?


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Oct 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Slovenia has a paramilitary force, small army and small navy, but relies on Italy to patrol its airspace.


The question still remains:  is Canada willing to reel in its footprint in the world to that of Slovenia or Iceland?  I note it wasn't Slovenia or Iceland that chatted up Iraq about its ministerial line-up this week, dangling SAS trainers, for example.  I'm going to say "no" at least as long as a Conservative (even Liberal) government is around.  While the OP asks if we should replace the CF with a paramilitary police force, I don't see much proof that Canada would be willing to reduce its international footprint.

Which comes back to:  what do we want our "fire department" to *do*?  *What threats* should be ready for?  Until those questions are answered by government, we're just discussing what kind of firetrucks we get in isolation.


----------



## GR66 (21 Oct 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Excellent point. If we value our sovereignty, as defined since 1648, then _contracting out_ our national defence is, certainly, selling ourselves back into colonial status. That's why I, along with most others, have _traditionally_ insisted that we ought to have an effective military ~ but not just for 'self defence,' we also need to promote and protect our vital interests wherever they are, around the world.
> 
> However, suppose the Peace of Westphalia is outdated. Maybe we don't have to 'respect' every artificial line in the sand - acknowledging that the 49th parallel is a 'line in the sand,' too. My _sense_ of my fellow Canadians is that many (most?) of them are already willing to accept tacit quasi-colonial status for the purposes of national defence; they are willing to swap a bit of (nearly invisible in most cases) sovereignty for the 'price' of US defence guarantees. Maybe the people have already spoken.



How many of these international conflicts are really internal conflicts involving neighbouring states?  Your previous examples of Ukraine, Scotland, Quebec, Iraq and Syria don't really fit the traditional concept of inter-state war.  Would Russia be in Ukraine without the sizeable dissatisfied Russian minority there as a "wedge"?  Would IS** be a threat in Iraq and Syria if they were not already torn apart by internal conflicts?

Maybe the "sanctity of borders" backed up by the security of nuclear deterrence by all the great powers DOES mean that "lines in the sand" are respected...just so long as those lines are agreed to by the citizens actually INSIDE those lines.  War (in the West at least) was once about expanding the power of the State by expanding your territory.  How many inter-state wars since WWII have been fought over conquest of territory that was not already in dispute between the opposing sides?  

Perhaps globalization, the UN, mass media, nuclear deterrence and integrated economies have stabilized MOST existing international borders.  Maybe the international wars we're dealing with now are for the most part really civil wars.  

If that's the case, then does the military we need for that look different than the military we'd need for a more traditional inter-state war?


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Oct 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> ...  *What threats* should be ready for? ...




Three kinds of threats:

     1. Symmetrical, e.g. Russia seizing territory in Europe and making mischief elsewhere. Conventional, _expeditionary_ type forces are required; 

     2. Asymmetrical, e.g. IS** _et al_. Special forces and non-military assets like _special branch_ police, CSIS and CSEC are required; and

     3. Unknown, e.g. China waging a sort or 'war' that doesn't involve military force. Soft power assets are required.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Oct 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Three kinds of threats:
> 
> 1. Symmetrical, e.g. Russia seizing territory in Europe and making mischief elsewhere. Conventional, _expeditionary_ type forces are required;
> 
> ...


Then can a Canadian Gendarme Service do all this alone, or even most of it?  Don't think so.  Keep in mind, though, that countries like Italy and France have both a highly-militarized federal gendarme force AND a conventional military.


----------



## Haggis (21 Oct 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> But Edward, I wager those same Canadians faced with the reality of foreign soldiers on our soil would lose their minds. Particularly if those soldiers were American. Saying "the Americans will protect us" and paying the price with boots on the ground are two different things.



Would they really be "American" boots on Canadian soil?  or would the US military simply subsume the CAF much as the OPP or RCMP subsumes small municipal police services when it assumes responsibility for community policing?  If not, what would happen to those 120,000 full and part time CAF members and the tens of thousands of federal public servants in DND?  Lay them off?


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Oct 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Drifting even further  ff topic:  ...
> 
> I have a couple of concerns right now, things about which I am, possibly, rethinking my _established_ positions:
> 
> ...



At the time of the Peace of Westphalia gunpowder was relatively new on the battlefield.  Matchlocks were just being replaced by flintlocks. Swords were still part of most soldiers arsenals and standing armies were replacing mercenary bands and levies.  

The standing armies did not enjoy much of a technological advantage over the local baron's fighting tails, or even outlaws and brigands.

The relied on being able to concentrate available forces, generally small, at appropriate points in a timely fashion.  They relied on tactics, training and discipline to defeat their less organized foes.

That held until the 1880s when Maxim introduced his gun.  The Russo Japanese war and WW1 confirmed in the minds of many that technology was now the key to winning wars.  You could sweep up anybody from the street, give him 30 days training and sit him behind a machine gun and you were good to go.  WW2 confirmed the value of technology.  It also demonstrated that only the state had the ability to develop the high end technologies necessary to tackle the other guy's high end technologies.  And thus the arms race.

But while governments have been fascinated with 2 Billion Dollar Aircraft and 1 Billion Dollar Patrol Boats they have been ignoring the fact that the low end technologies have been evolving so that everybody and his sister can buy a Jeep Wrangler, a Cell Phone with local radio, any Small Arms you care to name, complete with picatinny rails and aimpoint ballistic computers, as well as a variety of explosive mixtures.  A little more hunting will find you machine guns of all calibers up to 14.5mm and RPGs.

The delta in technology between those working on the ground and their enemies - outlaws, brigands and state sponsored helpers - has disappeared.  

Governments are now back to the days when the army was the yeoman of England armed with his own longbow and the Border Reiver with his own horse and lance.  They were indistinguishable from the outlaws, both in appearance and individual skills.

Sun Tzu and Machiavelli offer more to the Prince than Clausewitz.

The state could not develop in that environment.  Can the state survive in that environment?  Or is it likely that we will revert to a system of City-States defining the places with untamed spaces in between?  Armed merchantmen?  Surface convoys under armed guard?  More reliance on air movements?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Oct 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Drifting even further  ff topic:  ...
> 
> I have a couple of concerns right now, things about which I am, possibly, rethinking my _established_ positions:
> 
> ...



Edward, I don't think what you posted is drifting off-topic at all, in fact, I think it's very relevant to the topic at hand.  Particularly point #3 WRT to Chinese views on warfare.  With this in mind, I'd like to bring the discussion back towards privatization of military forces and the use of mercenaries.  

I am actually surprised this hasn't been posted yet but Erik Prince, the one time Chairman and CEO of Blackwater, has recently come out and criticized the Obama Administration for their "half-baked" foreign policy.  While Prince may be a man with a chip on his shoulder, due to the fact that the US Government threw him under the bus, he does make some valid points.  

Here is an opinion piece he published on his new companies blog, my key takeaways highlighted:

Courtesy of Frontier Security Group
http://www.fsgroup.com/chairmans-column-isis/



> fsgteam | October 6, 2014
> 
> Chairman’s Column – Thoughts on Countering ISIS
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Oct 2014)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Would they really be "American" boots on Canadian soil?  or would the US military simply subsume the CAF much as the OPP or RCMP subsumes small municipal police services when it assumes responsibility for community policing?  If not, what would happen to those 120,000 full and part time CAF members and the tens of thousands of federal public servants in DND?  Lay them off?



I may be wrong, but I can't think of anywhere the US extends its sovereignty without simultaneously having a physical presence.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Oct 2014)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Would they really be "American" boots on Canadian soil?  or would the US military simply subsume the CAF much as the OPP or RCMP subsumes small municipal police services when it assumes responsibility for community policing?


In the policing examples, it's still police whose ultimate bosses are still in Canada doing the policing.  My guess:  Canadians would perceive even Canadian troops working under American management as troops controlled by Washington, not Ottawa.


			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> what would happen to those 120,000 full and part time CAF members and the *tens of thousands of federal public servants in DND*?  Lay them off?


As per the bit in yellow, I've seen municipalities lay off folks from the former local force because they weren't needed anymore now that "Big Blue" or "Big Red" is policing, so at least some would go.  Maybe THAT'S a way to cut our HQ's!  >


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Oct 2014)

How many of us live in communities that have hired private watchmen?

What equipment do you want to give them beyond a bicycle, a flashlight and a radio?

Car?
Bulletproof Vest?
NightVision?

Handcuffs?
Batons?
Tasers?

CO2 Guns?
Pistols?
Shotguns?
Rifles?
SMGs?
40mm grenade launchers?

I doubt many would suggest Carl Gustav's and higher for the local community ..... unless the local community has a dispute with the neighbouring community over the height of the dividing hedge and the amount of noise.  In which case it is my nightwatchmen against your nightwatchmen.


----------



## cupper (21 Oct 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> How many of us live in communities that have hired private watchmen?
> 
> What equipment do you want to give them beyond a bicycle, a flashlight and a radio?
> 
> ...



Betcha no one would think twice about stoopin' and scoopin' the poopin'. >


----------



## a_majoor (21 Oct 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Drifting even further  ff topic:  ...
> 
> I have a couple of concerns right now, things about which I am, possibly, rethinking my _established_ positions:
> 
> ...



Various military thinkers have been exploring these concepts for quite a while, but the bureaucratic and political machines which actually operate and use Western militaries have not really moved with the times, mostly because institutional incentives to do so are lacking (think about it: did _anyone_ get fired or demoted for debacles like "Cloth the Soldier", failing to purchase new logistics vehicles or any of the other nightmarish purchasing and acquisition horror stories we have been subjected to for a decade or more? Either inside the military or the civil service?). I suspect that it will take something really drastic like an aircraft carrier being sunk or a major defeat of a field force by an asymmetric enemy to really make things change.

Yet Robert Kaplan's "The Coming Anarchy" was published in 1994.
Martin van Creveld published  The Transformation of War in 1991
Colonel Thomas X. Hammes' book The Sling and the Stone was published in 2006

And these are only the most prominent ones. There are literally scores of articles, books, websites etc. devoted to the topic of the evolution and changes in warfare and the military environment.

This kind of goes to the Fire Department analogy. A Fire Department should be aware of the changes in the community they serve. If there are no high rise buildings they would be silly to spend money on a ladder truck. Our military establishments seem a bit like fire departments using equipment and footprints that were relevant in the past, but do not reflect the changed cityscape they now operate in. Despite the gradual increase in high rises, urban sprawl, hazardous materials in industrial facilities etc., the Fire Chief insists all he needs are some new pumpers and more dispatchers to enable the firemen. So long as there are few fires, the politicians at city hall and the voters don't think about it too much (besides the occasional uproar over sole source purchases of new fire engines every few decades).

As Kirkhill alluded to upthread, there are greater forces at work here. Cultural, economic, technological and demographics have changed pretty drastically and our institutions (of all kinds) really don't reflect these changes anymore. What sort of force will be needed to protect citizens, their rights and properties will be difficult to define. I suspect many overlapping "forces" will be needed; from the neighbourhood watch to whoever mans the Anti Ballistic Missile Shield. Threats as varied as diseases, drugs, market manipulation and computer virii all pose huge threats to people and property. Maybe instead of an overarching "Homeland Security" type bureaucracy we really need a "bridge" organization that can contract and rapidly deploy resources wherever needed to match whatever the threat is (and "sovereignty" as we understand it now only extends as far as the "bridge" can reach).

Lots to think about, but the real question is who will act on this?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Oct 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> While the Saint-Jean incident is pretty f**king bad, let's also be cautious about developing a military (or any capability) based on only one problem.



Fully agree.  But, I think we need to be honest with ourselves; not only is 'the enemy at the gate', in some cases he is thru the gate, across the yard, into the house and sitting comfortably on the couch.  Watching us in our own backyards.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Oct 2014)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Fully agree.  But, I think we need to be honest with ourselves; not only is 'the enemy at the gate', in some cases he is thru the gate, across the yard, into the house and sitting comfortably on the couch.  Watching us in our own backyards.


Even if this didn't happen, very good point to keep in mind.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Oct 2014)

Well at least someone is finally taking some action on operating in a very changed environment. This is the sort of discussion that needs to take place in Ottawa as well, WRT how our military and security forces need to be configured and operate:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/10/15/army-rolls-out-operating-concept-emphasizing-threats-like-isis.html



> *Army Rolls Out Operating Concept Emphasizing Threats Like ISIS, Ebola*
> 
> Oct 15, 2014|by Kris Osborn
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Oct 2014)

The politicians do indeed have to get involved with this unconventional warfare.  They will have to adjust to different comfort levels on when they are willing to authorize counter measures.

I have made repeated reference to a closing remark by a retiring member of the SAS in his book Ghost Force.  After having been involved in Malaysia, the Radfan, the Iranian Embassy and a number of other operations he felt that the day of the SAS as he knew was coming to a close.  It's place would be taken by people in business suits with credit cards.  Everything they needed to sabotage an economy, assassinate the inconvenient, foment an insurrection could be bought in country.  The technicalities of the tools and the toys were immaterial.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Oct 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The politicians do indeed have to get involved with this unconventional warfare.  They will have to adjust to different comfort levels on when they are willing to authorize counter measures.
> 
> I have made repeated reference to a closing remark by a retiring member of the SAS in his book Ghost Force.  After having been involved in Malaysia, the Radfan, the Iranian Embassy and a number of other operations he felt that the day of the SAS as he knew was coming to a close.  It's place would be taken by people in business suits with credit cards.  Everything they needed to sabotage an economy, assassinate the inconvenient, foment an insurrection could be bought in country.  The technicalities of the tools and the toys were immaterial.



I disagree.  That is a totally different type of warfare, fought on a different "battlefield", concurrent with other operations that are "more physical".  Unconventional warfare will still need the SOF soldiers to physically go in and kill enemy combatants.  Someone in a suit, with a credit card, is not going to stop the progress of ISIS/ISIL or any future terrorist or insurgent group.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Oct 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I disagree.  That is a totally different type of warfare, fought on a different "battlefield", concurrent with other operations that are "more physical".  Unconventional warfare will still need the SOF soldiers to physically go in and kill enemy combatants.  Someone in a suit, with a credit card, is not going to stop the progress of ISIS/ISIL or any future terrorist or insurgent group.




Even the 'physical' (_wet_) work can be contracted ... especially against groups of 'combatants' like IS**.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Oct 2014)

I think what the author was getting at was that the SAS he knew was not so much a reactive force as a creative force.  It was deployed to make things happen and to dislodge logjams.  They were quietly working away outside of the media glare.  

Once the guns started to shoot they were reduced to conducting operations much like any other soldier.  In part that is why the UK SF Group has expanded so much, why the Para's 1st Bn has become a Reaction Group, and why the Brits hold onto their light infantry capabilities.  That is all due to the need for rapidly deployable reaction forces.

Ken Connor, the author, specifically references a Gambian operation - summarized below.



> Special Air Service (SAS) - Gambia Hostage Rescue
> 
> Share:			Share on Tumblr	share by email
> It's testament to the faith that the then British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, had in the Special Air Service that when, in the early 80s, a crisis erupted in Africa, just 2 SAS men were sent in to help reverse a coup and rescue the family of a President.
> ...



http://www.eliteukforces.info/special-air-service/sas-operations/gambia-hostage-rescue/

When things get noisy you do have to send in conventional troops. Agreed.

But how do you counter men with credit cards and polite green men, as in Ukraine?  Openly or covertly?


----------



## GR66 (22 Oct 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I disagree.  That is a totally different type of warfare, fought on a different "battlefield", concurrent with other operations that are "more physical".  Unconventional warfare will still need the SOF soldiers to physically go in and kill enemy combatants.  Someone in a suit, with a credit card, is not going to stop the progress of ISIS/ISIL or any future terrorist or insurgent group.



I think that some would suggest that if there was a political willingness to unleash these "men in business suits" earlier and with less restraint then the threats could be eliminated before they got to the point that more blunt (and much more expensive) conventional military forces are required like we're seeing now against IS**.  There certainly are historical precedents for this...the Iranian coup that toppled Mosaddeq in 1953 (and the counter-coup by Khomeini in 1979 as a win by the other side) for example.

I personally don't think we usually understand the underlying politics enough to make this our only (or primary) form of combat however.  We have and will continue to make big boo-boos in our political decisions that will result in the requirement to make use of more conventional military forces to solve some problems.  I do however think we are stuck pretty far on the "Conventional" end of the military spectrum in our thinking, organization and application of power.  Staying stuck in this rut I think is every bit as dangerous to our military capability as allowing our equipment to rust out.

Moderators:  I'm not sure if a split from this thread might be appropriate.  The original thought project was to ask if it's time to DISBAND the CF.  I think numerous posters have given some pretty solid arguments showing that such an action is not impossible or totally without precedent.  I think continued discussion about the changes to other departments and organizations that would be required to fill in many of the gaps created as well as discussion of what Canada would lose by giving up a conventional military are worth continuing.  However, I think other posters are more discussing keeping the CF but making fundamental and radical changes to the size and structure and employment of our military.  Both fascinating discussions but apples and oranges.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Oct 2014)

Just as another historical footnote - Dragoons were raised for policing the countryside before Police Forces were raised.  Police forces were raised only after society became polite enough to permit unarmed nightwatchmen to be effective*.

The RCMP, curiously, is a regiment of dragoons.  The area between Policing and Dragooning is becoming increasingly grey as the criminals again become less polite.  But that way leads to the Standing Army that all good Englishmen, whether they reside in Scotland, Canada or the US, abhor.

The need for an army of heavy forces, to break up the other guys dragoons when they come for us, continues. That force is epitomized by the US war machine.  A heavy weight that drops fast and destroys utterly but takes time to remuster and can't be sustained.

*Interestingly the Glasgow Police lay claim to the title of the world's oldest modern police force (the Met no longer challenges this) having been in business since 1779.  Which just goes to show you what happens when you treat criminals politely. In Canadian terms you have to start a registry for hammers, steel toed boots and razor lined caps.

Edit note: suffering from Prudori's Disease.


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Oct 2014)

Back on main topic: ls it time to disband the Canadian Armed Forces. well, the answer has always been quite clearly no, although many suggested alternatives are afoot, nothing really replaces today in short order what we currently have to work with. Notwithstanding that, after this weeks events and in particular the speech last night by PM Harper "There will be no safe haven for savages ..."  He needs to pay up, or shut up. Sorry to be so frank, but damned good men have died, more will surely die before this is over.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Oct 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Edit note: suffering from Prudori's Disease.


Funny guy .....  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Oct 2014)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Back on main topic: ls it time to disband the Canadian Armed Forces. well, the answer has always been quite clearly no, although many suggested alternatives are afoot, nothing really replaces today in short order what we currently have to work with. Notwithstanding that, after this weeks events and in particular the speech last night by PM Harper "There will be no safe haven for savages ..."  He needs to pay up, or shut up. Sorry to be so frank, but damned good men have died, more will surely die before this is over.




I quite agree, on both counts ... those of us who are Conservative Party members need to keep reminding the PM that we need effective, combat capable and efficient armed forces. To me that means both _*a)*_ more money, soon; and *b)* amongst other things, a less bloated C2 superstructure.

I keep saying to him that "The CF needs a new paint job: less gold (admirals and generals) and more grey and green (ships, planes, guns and soldiers)."


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Oct 2014)

"Every country has an army on its soil; either its own, or someone else’s". Konrad Adenauer


http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/2013/05/27/military-spending-need-not-be-ruinous-to-the-economy


----------

