# Matt Gurney: Ukraine crisis shows need for larger Canadian military



## dimsum (21 Apr 2014)

"And yet all of these things have happened, in recent memory, and with little or no warning. The world is not as nice or stable a place as millions of Canadians continue to pretend it is. We need a military capable of securing our home and helping out abroad. We don’t have it. This should embarrass us all — but especially our “troop supporting” Tory government. It’s great that the troops are so valued. Too bad there’s so few of them."

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/04/20/matt-gurney-ukraine-crisis-shows-need-for-larger-canadian-military/

-----

ETA:  Oops, didn't realize it's already in the Ukraine thread.


----------



## McG (21 Apr 2014)

We'll leave this here as its own thread.  It is not really about the Ukrain anyway; it is about us.


----------



## pbi (21 Apr 2014)

Ahhh, yes. Here we go again. 

"Canada should have a bigger military!!!!"

It's like my favourite pair of comfortable old shoes: they get lost for a while but I always find them again, and when I put them on they haven't changed much.


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Apr 2014)

We'll need more HQ's too.


----------



## Tibbson (21 Apr 2014)

I can't tell if some are being sarcastic or not but perhaps the reason why he, and others, keep trotting this topic out is because successive governments just haven't listened. We could never be like the American military,  nore would I want to be, but its been painfully obvious throughout my yars of service that we have not been at the levels and capabilities we should have been at.  If it wasn't for the dedication of our members....


----------



## Sub_Guy (21 Apr 2014)

No, we can never be like the yanks, but we could be more like the Aussies.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Apr 2014)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> No, we can never be like the yanks, but we could be more like the Aussies.



I don't know a lot about the Aussies, but personally I don't think we have to be more like any other nation than who we are.
We have the capability to do so much more but seem to get lost in internal struggles, conflict between environments and empire building.


----------



## McG (21 Apr 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> Ahhh, yes. Here we go again.
> 
> "Canada should have a bigger military!!!!"


The argument may not be for a bigger military; it may be that we have assigned the resources in the wrong places and needed capabilities go wanting.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Apr 2014)

It was, sadly, ever thus.

This table, courtesy of Mark Collins at the _Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute_, show the recent history, since the end of World War II, of Canada's defence spending:






The red line is spending in 2012 dollars (i.e. adjusted for inflation); it must be looked at against the left vertical axis ($0 to $24 Billion)
The blue line is spending measured as a percentage of GDP, in other words an expression of the _share_ of our national wealth we, Canadians,
are willing to spend on defence. It must be looked at against the right vertical axis (0% to 8%)

Here are similar tables for the USA and Britain:





US defence spending as a percentage of GDP: World War II to 2012





British defence spending: Korea to 2007

First point: everyone cuts defence spending when there is a possibility to do so.

Why?

First, because people, citizens, you and your friends and families don't like paying taxes. Governments (political parties) all want to make you happy so they want to reduce some spending. Polling data from Canadians is, and has been for generations, consistent in telling politicians that we, Canadians, don't like spending money on defence. 

Second, because defence spending is, generally, _unproductive_ and, some economist say, even _counter-productive_ so the governments' skilled professional advisors want to keep it as low as possible.

We dealt with this subject, here on Army.ca, five years ago, in this Ruxted article. Ruxted understood the *political* desire to cut defence, even when we had troops in contact with an enemy.

Ruxted also presaged Matt Gurney in a 2007 article which described a _Triple A+_ military: one which is _*A*_ppropriate for a G7 country; _*A*_daptable to an ever changing _strategic_ environment ("general purpose combat capability," anyone?); _*A*_vailable, by which Ruxted meant "ready" which implies enough people, weapons, transport - including strategic lift - and maintenance; and the + was _*A*_ffordable.

What is _*A*_ffordable?

Ruxted addressed that, too, a few months later, in another article entitled A look to the future. The answer, with which I agree, is 2% of GDP. In today's dollars that's about $36.5 Billion ... now look at the top table again, please. We spend about $23.5 Billion or 1.25% of GDP on defence.

Second point: In my opinion we *can* afford to spend 2% of GDP, even more, on defence and we can do so easily, without raising taxes, by readjusting government spending in a more politically "mature" manner - i.e. doing what right vs. doing what's popular. In my opinion we *should* spend more because the world is a more dangerous place than it has been since the 1960s, when we did spend enough on our national defences.


----------



## Sub_Guy (21 Apr 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I don't know a lot about the Aussies, but personally I don't think we have to be more like any other nation than who we are.
> We have the capability to do so much more but seem to get lost in internal struggles, conflict between environments and empire building.



We have similar budgets, yet they always seem to be kitted out, whereas we are more focused on the points you brought up.


----------



## MilEME09 (21 Apr 2014)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> We have similar budgets, yet they always seem to be kitted out, whereas we are more focused on the points you brought up.



If we are to get any where IMO we need to stop the in fighting and present a united from for reform within DND to get us to such a point where we can have our kit and use it too


----------



## rmc_wannabe (21 Apr 2014)

IMO our main difference with other G7/NATO/ABCA nations is how much government policy is involved in the day to day operations of our military.

I would love to know if the Government of Australia is as balls deep into procurement of equipment as ours is. I don't know if they look to the newest toys as political points or... you know, tools for the job they ask of their troops.  :dunno:


----------



## TCM621 (21 Apr 2014)

If they just pegged it at 2% of the previous years GDP (with a provision for contingency spending), we could almost double our military. And if we had a major drop in GDP, the military budget would automatically be adjusted.


----------



## dimsum (21 Apr 2014)

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> IMO our main difference with other G7/NATO/ABCA nations is how much government policy is involved in the day to day operations of our military.
> 
> I would love to know if the Government of Australia is as balls deep into procurement of equipment as ours is. I don't know if they look to the newest toys as political points or... you know, tools for the job they ask of their troops.  :dunno:



In a word:  Yes.  Look up Collins-class submarines or the latest flap about the decline of the shipbuilding industry in Adelaide/Melbourne until the Canberra-class was ordered.  I will say that they are more amenable to direct Foreign Military Sales, but still try to "Australianise" their equipment with predictable results.

Ironically, if you were to ask the average Australian Army person they would think that the Canadian Army, with our M777s and such, are very well kitted out as well.  Ask the average ADF member and they would think that our unified military is great, just because our empire-building, duplication of effort (basic training, admin) etc. is less visible.  I find that the lack of visibility of the other services, through Basic or combined courses or even seeing them on base, leads to a much stronger "us v. them" mentality.  The RAAF, at least, is as obsessed with buttons and bows (look up General Purpose Uniform) as we are - they have changed 3-4 styles of dress and operational uniforms in the past 15 years.

Public opinion of the ADF, aside from ANZAC Day and Remembrance Day, is about the same as opinion on the CF.  The ADF budget is getting slashed as well; last I remember was $5B for the RAAF alone.  The new ships and planes are from money that was set aside.  Also note that with the end of the RNZAF strike wing and fighter fleet, the defence of NZ became, essentially, Australia's role as well.  

I'm not comfortable about this trend that I see about comparing ourselves to Australia.  Yes, we have similarities but I wonder if we are replacing our "if only we were like them" mentality from the UK, then the US, and now to Oz.  Also, remember that Australia is the big Western nation in the region, with the US/UK being too far to really support them quickly.  Then again, I may have been here long enough to top seeing the greener grass.   :dunno:


----------



## McG (22 Apr 2014)

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> I would love to know if the Government of Australia is as balls deep into procurement of equipment as ours is. I don't know if they look to the newest toys as political points or... you know, tools for the job they ask of their troops.  :dunno:


Military procurement is politicized in every country.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (22 Apr 2014)

MCG said:
			
		

> Military procurement is politicized in every country.



I was not refuting that fact. I was merely inquiring to what degree it happens within our partner nations.

Dimsum provided a pretty fresh perspective on that.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Apr 2014)

>We need a military capable of securing our home and helping out abroad.

Regarding the latter - maybe.  Is "helping out abroad in a land war in Asia" a Canadian policy priority?

Whatever we send east of Berlin is important politically, not militarily; hence, it just has to be capable of being politically important.


----------



## suffolkowner (22 Apr 2014)

There was a linked article to the state of our navy but it was from he who must not be named so I do not include it here, but I do wonder about it's accuracy

I would prefer a better provided for military, hopefully after the next election the recapitalization can continue

The shipbuilding program seems like a disaster but if the government follows through I will be satisfied, although I do not see the value in the AOPS and wonder why Korean made cars are good enough for Canadians but Korean made ships are unacceptable.

With respect to strategic imperatives I wonder does Canada really have any? To me the main ones are dictated by our alliances with the US/NATO. This point comes up in the Ukraine thread quite a bit, and other than someone deciding to admit the Baltic states I can see little reason for them being strategically more important than Ukraine.


----------



## dimsum (22 Apr 2014)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> The shipbuilding program seems like a disaster but if the government follows through I will be satisfied, although I do not see the value in the AOPS and wonder why Korean made cars are good enough for Canadians but Korean made ships are unacceptable.



One word:  Jobs.  

Well, and a historically (and culturally) important shipbuilding industry in an economically-slumped area of the country (NS, not BC) which would be frothing at the mouth to criticize any politician that allows the RCN to buy foreign-built ships.

So, jobs.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Apr 2014)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> One word:  Jobs.
> 
> Well, and a historically (and culturally) important shipbuilding industry in an economically-slumped area of the country (NS, not BC) which would be frothing at the mouth to criticize any politician that allows the RCN to buy foreign-built ships.
> 
> So, jobs.



Jobs = Politics.


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 Apr 2014)

I believe that Australia also remembers what could have happened in the Second World War. 

Most of the ADF was fighting in the Middle East, and somewhat assisting in the garrisoning of Malaya. Australia was very lightly defended in 1941/42  and the Japanese where sweeping the Pacific with a powerful Navy and Air Force. The continent was bombed regularily and obviously morale in the absent ADF was low as they worried was could happen to their homeland.

In 1942 the untested, partially trained 1st Marine Division arrived prior to Guadalcanal (more worry re daughters??)

Photo caption: Map of Imperial Japanese advances in the Southwest Pacific and Southeast Asia areas during the first five months of the Pacific Campaign of World War II.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Apr 2014)

Just following.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Apr 2014)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is an article which illustrates the _opposition_ to Canadian military _engagement_, the _raison d'être_ for a bigger, better military, from a respected source:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/why-canadian-fighter-jets-in-poland-will-embolden-putin/article18122221/#dashboard/follows/


> Why is Canada sending fighter jets to Poland?
> 
> BY MICHAEL BLISS
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




Now, as much as I respect Prof Bliss, and I honestly do, he is showing a very distinct anti-military bias - one which is, I think, almost second nature to many, many people of his background, education and experience.

A quibble, first: Prof Bliss failed to mention that George Kennan opposed the very existence of NATO, that he would oppose its expansion into the Russian sphere was a given.

I agree we should, vigorously, debate Canada's role in the world and military's place in that role and, consequentially, the sort of military (and defence budget) we need. And that debate should include listening to ans countering those, like Prof Bliss, to are still wedded to Pierre Trudeau's brand of isolationism.

Canada is, by any sensible measure, one of the top 10% of the countries in the world in every category except population (where we are in the top 15%). We are rich, we are educated, we should be _engaged_ in the world: trying to help the 200+ countries *below* us to improve their situations. _Engagement_ implies some risk and risks in foreign _engagements_ demand some military power. 

So, in Matt Gurney's article, which opens this thread, and, now, in Prof Bliss' piece you have the 'book ends' of the debate.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (23 Apr 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If he had been in power in 2003, Stephen Harper would probably have sent Canadian forces into Iraq. This is not a good track record



Professor Bliss lost me on his argument with the quoted statement.  A history professor should know better than to engage in counter-factual arguments like this which not only are unbased in any sort of fact but also demonstrate political bias.

PM Harper, in 2003, would have been faced with the same problems that kept PM Chretien from entering the invasion (though the liberal politicos spent a lot of energy convincing the US that we did in effect have the third largest presence)

I would expect more reasoned analysis from academia  :-[


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Apr 2014)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Professor Bliss lost me on his argument with the quoted statement.  A history professor should know better than to engage in counter-factual arguments like this which not only are unbased in any sort of fact but also demonstrate political bias.
> 
> PM Harper, in 2003, would have been faced with the same problems that kept PM Chretien from entering the invasion (though the liberal politicos spent a lot of energy convincing the US that we did in effect have the third largest presence)
> 
> I would expect more reasoned analysis from academia  :-[




That's why I said his bias is "almost second nature to many, many people of his background, education and experience." Prof Bliss is a member of the _Laurentian elites_; he opposed, in several articles, both the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords, he, generally, opposes Canadian military actions overseas, save for _baby blue beret_ style peacekeeping. Prof Bliss was, and remains, a staunch supporter of Pierre Trudeau, but he drifted away from the Liberal Party of Canada at the end of the Trudeau era. In 2013, in a _Macdonald-Laurier Institute_ debate he wrote:

     "The milestones on the Canadian Liberal road begin with the achievements of Robert Baldwin and Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine, and go on through Laurier, King, Pearson, and, above all, the senior Trudeau. Pierre Elliott Trudeau
      was not a Canadian political maverick. In his political writing and in his political action, Trudeau was a classic Canadian Liberal, and as prime minister he finished the job begun by his predecessors. He gave us our own Constitution,
      he gave us our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, he preserved our country when its future was in grave doubt because of Quebec separatism.

       After Trudeau, Canadian Liberals had little left to do. The Chrétien government got us through the ultimate counter-attack on the Trudeau settlement, the 1995 Quebec referendum, and it took precautions for future battles by
      passing the Clarity Act. It also tackled the Trudeau-Mulroney legacy of reckless debt increase.

      Then, nada. Canadians were not ready for further constitutional change — such as abolishing the monarchy or perhaps the Senate. The pillars of our welfare state were all in place and more in need of repair and repainting than expansion."

That, in my opinion, is where his biases lie - he is a _Trudeau Canadian_.


----------



## Tibbson (23 Apr 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> That, in my opinion, is where his biases lie - he is a _Trudeau Canadian_.



Then he may get a chance to relive his dream after the next election.


----------



## McG (23 Apr 2014)

Getting back to the initial idea of this thread -> The excitement over the Ukraine demonstrates (as has been demonstrated many times in the past) that one cannot predict when conflict will occur and one cannot expect they will have five years to get ready.  Our military may or may not need to grow, re-organize, re-equip, transform or whatever else.  Developing the military for the next unknown is a continuous task, and we cannot afford take a rest from it because things seem a little calm right now.


----------



## MilEME09 (26 Apr 2014)

> *Conrad Black: Canada needs a strong military to back up its bravado*
> 
> Canada has set aside its former cherished international position as self-proclaimed peacekeeper, and now has an opportunity to graduate from the Harper government’s more commendable but still unsatisfactory status as a mouse that roars, to some level of international relevance.
> Canada was a good ally in the World Wars and as a co-founder of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The notion of peacekeeping took hold in 1956, after the British and French had adopted the insane scheme of encouraging Israel to invade the Egyptian Sinai and proceed to the Suez Canal, which Egypt’s President Nasser had just seized from the Suez Canal Company, owned by Britain and France. For the next 40 years, there was a fluctuating but imperishable attachment by Canadian governments of both parties to the concept of peacekeeping under U.N. auspices. Even as the United Nations became a steadily more disreputable sinkhole of corruption and hypocrisy where a vast coalition of poor and despotic countries squandered and embezzled the international organization’s budget, and peace-keeping itself degenerated into poor countries renting out their peacekeepers, paid for by the advanced countries of the UN, as mercenaries to factions in civil wars, Canada subscribed to the fraud that their country was a halcyon with a talent for calming troubled areas.
> ...


http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/04/26/conrad-black-canada-needs-a-strong-military-to-back-up-its-bravado/

- mod edit to add link to article -


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Apr 2014)

Dutch decided to keep Karel Doorman; 
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/dutch-order-multi-purpose-support-ship-06113/
Lord Black knows almost nothing of these matters, arrogant sod.  No idea of the cost and personnel numbers to run/crew CVN (learning how to deal with nuke systems aside)? CVN air wing amongst other planes has 48 fighters all by itself, which would be almost the whole of our currently planned fighter force.  Conrad should get a grip--and do some real research:
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nimitz/

Hurl.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dimsum (26 Apr 2014)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Dutch decided to keep Karel Doorman;
> http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/dutch-order-multi-purpose-support-ship-06113/
> Lord Black knows almost nothing of these matters, arrogant sod.  No idea of the cost and personnel numbers to run/crew CVN (learning how to deal with nuke systems aside)? CVN air wing amongst other planes has 48 fighters all by itself, which would be almost the whole of our currently planned fighter force.  Conrad should get a grip--and do some real research:
> http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nimitz/
> ...



Why let facts get in the way of a good argument?   >

There was an US article a few weeks ago proposing gifting older CVNs, LHDs, etc to allied nations - Australia and Canada were specifically named.  The first thing I thought once reading it was "where are we going to get said people and infrastructure to even operate it?"


----------



## MilEME09 (26 Apr 2014)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Why let facts get in the way of a good argument?   >
> 
> There was an US article a few weeks ago proposing gifting older CVNs, LHDs, etc to allied nations - Australia and Canada were specifically named.  The first thing I thought once reading it was "where are we going to get said people and infrastructure to even operate it?"



Why why not create thousands of jobs to build that infrastructure? could get plenty of votes, not to mention getting used ships for cheap as proven to work politically at the time they are bought  >


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Apr 2014)

That reminds me of stories of small police departments in the US that were stupid enough to accept gifts of "free" surplus military equipment.

The next thing they know, an armoured car or two they never needed in the first place is sucking money out of their already fully-committed budget.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Apr 2014)

The key issue here is what is the political goal of a Canadian military deployment or expedition? If we do not have a clear goal, or cannot articulate it, then the public will not support military action for very long, and the enemy can use 4GW techniques to "shape" the political will of their enemies (i.e. us) to a feeling or relaization that the goal will be too costly in time and/or resources to ever achieve. If our goal is unclear in the first place, then this is almost trivially easy to achieve.

The problem in this particular case falls more into the problems identified in the lead article in the thread: our military is too small to achieve many political goals (no matter how desirable), since we will run out of men and equipment long before we can reach our goal. Even in Afghanistan, sending a 1500 man battlegroup and their supporting elements used up virtually all the Canadian military, and the public was seeing a tremendous expenditure in blood and treasure for exactly what? Putting jets, a ship or even a battlegroup potentially into harms way to Bolster NATO or Poland might make some diplomatic sense, but if things go south, what do we do to follow up? This is the essence of Gurney's argument, and one which successive governments or pro military pundits have failed to make. Some of the reasons are as Edward describes; the political establishment has other domestic goals that the military does not further, and the public wants things like the military (or even domestic infrastructure like water and sewers) to be "out of sight, out of mind"; they may resent having to pay for it, but just listen to the crap storm when they suddenly discover there is a need for it after all.

I suspect that the situation in Eastern Europe (this is no longer confined to Ukraine any more, as Russia's political goals are to make the Near Beyond and as much of their former Eastern European Empire as possible "fall into line" and provide a secure market and buffer zone for Russia) will result in a small surge in defense spending post 2015 (this crisis isn't going to go away), but nowhere near the amount of resources to make any serious change in the correlation of forces. Nagging problems like the rusted out truck fleet and AOR's might finally be addressed, and some improvement ot our capabilities might trickle down (lightweight ATGM's suitable for dismounted platoons might finally show up), but I doubt that we will increase the CF-35 buy to 100 or anything like that.


----------



## CBH99 (27 Apr 2014)

To be honest, it's the basic things that are lacking in our military that cause me the most frustration.  

We are a G7 country - basic things like trucks, a basic ATGM capability, a basic AD capability, etc are things that frustrate me far more than some of the larger capital purchases.  

I don't think we need a larger military, frankly.  Not until the one we have can be outfitted with decent kit at the BASIC level.  I would prefer a streamlined, well equipped, firepower heavy, current CF over a larger CF that has the same issues we are currently facing today.  

I would elaborate and rant on for a bit about how the lack of common sense and prudence is far more damaging to our military's capabilities than a lack of $$, but it's 4:00am and finally time for bed.


----------



## TCM621 (27 Apr 2014)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> To be honest, it's the basic things that are lacking in our military that cause me the most frustration.
> 
> We are a G7 country - basic things like trucks, a basic ATGM capability, a basic AD capability, etc are things that frustrate me far more than some of the larger capital purchases.
> 
> ...


Great point. We often think in terms of numbers but what use in a huge military if we have no kit?

To all the people who are reflectivity answering with things like, "who is going to drive these ships" or  something similar,  a decision to purchase a helicopter carrier (for example) comes with the decision to fund the manning and running of it. Or at least it should. Black's point has nothing to do with specific equipment purchases. It is about outfitting the CF in a manner befitting a major economic nation. A G7 country should have a top 10 military.  And with as much love and pride I have for the CAF, we just don't.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Apr 2014)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Great point. We often think in terms of numbers but what use in a huge military if we have no kit?
> 
> To all the people who are reflectivity answering with things like, "who is going to drive these ships" or  something similar,  a decision to purchase a helicopter carrier (for example) comes with the decision to fund the manning and running of it. Or at least it should. Black's point has nothing to do with specific equipment purchases. It is about outfitting the CF in a manner befitting a major economic nation. A G7 country should have a top 10 military.  And with as much love and pride I have for the CAF, we just don't.




Why?

What direct threat do we need to counter? What indirect threats are there to our *vital strategic interests*?

Look at these three lists:

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures  (Canada is only in the top 15 on one of those lists)

     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel (Canada isn't even in the top 50, but do we really need 300,000+ active duty CF members?)

     http://www.businessinsider.com/10-most-powerful-militaries-in-the-world-2013-6?op=1 (is there any reason to be in that Top 10 list?)

I agree that we _count_ as a "Top 10" nation in most attributes of national power (but not in either population or the military) and I believe we ought to have a military force that is _appropriate_ for a "Top 10" nation, but that doesn't mean we have to have 100,000 regular force members, a helicopter carrier or two, 200 tanks and 200 combat aircraft, does it?

As mentioned earlier some of us think that Canada needs _Triple A+_ armed forces. The first three As, *A*ppropriate to a G7 nation, *A*vailable (combat ready) and *A*daptable (flexible) are easy enough to understand but it is the 4th A, *Affordability*, that is the problem. Canada isn't Singapore; we don't live in a very, very rough neighbourhood ... we don't need to spend 3.6% of our GDP on defence. But was can afford more than 1.25%; but that's a act of political will and, absent a direct threat or a *major world crisis*, Canadians don't want to spend on defence* and politicians don't like acting against the popular will.


_____
* We know that because the polling data has been consistent for 50+ years.


----------



## Journeyman (27 Apr 2014)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> A G7 country should have a top 10 military.  And with as much love and pride I have for the CAF, we just don't.


But we're getting new badges on a pretty regular basis....and growing new HQs..... and renaming the ones we have...

.... sure, we're cannibalizing B Vehs and the troops have to share mukluks for an arctic exercise, but you can't have _everything_.   op:


----------



## MilEME09 (27 Apr 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> But we're getting new badges on a pretty regular basis....and growing new HQs..... and renaming the ones we have...
> 
> .... sure, we're cannibalizing B Vehs and the troops have to share mukluks for an arctic exercise, but you can't have _everything_.   op:



But if the officers in NDHQ can have their cake and eat it too, why cant we? >


----------

