# Canadian Forces underfunded



## Yard Ape (27 Sep 2001)

Well, this is no surprise to anybody farmiliar with the military.  Hopefully people will listen to the warnings this time . . . it never seemed important when tax cuts were available in the past.

   Yard Ape

------------------------------------------------------------------

*Canadian Forces underfunded, lobby group says*
By JEFF SALLOT
With a report from Jeff Gray
Globe and Mail Update
Thursday, September 27

Ottawa — A report by a defence lobby group says the cash-starved Canadian Forces cannot meet basic commitments to help protect the United States, even as Defence Minister Art Eggleton offers military assistance to Washington‘s antiterrorist campaign.

The report, released Thursday by the Conference of Defence Associations, says the Canadian Forces‘ major weapons systems face "mass extinction" from rust.

"Our study concludes that, due to insufficient funds in the defence budget, the Canadian Forces cannot fulfill their commitments beyond a marginal level," Lieutenant-General (ret.) Charles Belzile told a news conference in Ottawa on Thursday.

As for Canada‘s basic duty to help defend the United States, the report states that the Canadian Forces "are simply not operationally ready to do so — in terms of manpower, doctrine, training, equipment and logistics."

The Conference of Defence Associations is an umbrella group with a reported membership of 600,000 Canadians with connections to the military. The report was prepared by former military officers.

The report, which was in the works well before the attacks on New York and Washington two weeks ago, does not deal directly with countering terrorist threats. But it argues that Canada cannot carry out its commitment to help defend North America.

The group‘s report will likely fuel the debate, in full force since the Sept. 11 attacks, about the ability of the Canadian military to help in antiterrorist operations.

Mr. Eggleton said Wednesday that Canada is ready to make forces available to the antiterrorist campaign, but he repeated Prime Minister Jean Chrétien‘s caveat that the United States won‘t be handed a "blank cheque."

The Defence Department will need at least an additional $1-billion each year to meet all of its commitments, the report states.

In a telephone interview from Brussels, where he and other NATO ministers were briefed on the antiterrorist campaign by U.S. officials, Mr. Eggleton noted that the government restored some of the defence budget in the last federal budget, and his department may get additional money because of the terrorist attacks.

The report states that cuts to military personnel, from a Cold War level of 85,000 to an effective fighting force of 53,000, have opened a gap between Canada‘s commitments and its abilities.

Six of Canada‘s 12 coastal-defence vessels are not available because of crew shortages, and a destroyer had to be docked earlier this year for the same reason, the report states, adding that Canada can keep only one ship off each coast on short-notice standby.

The air-force fleet of 122 front-line CF-18 fighters has been cut to 80 and there‘s a pilot shortage; a situation that will likely get worse over the next three years, the report says.

The army has only enough modern armoured vehicles to transport 18 of its 27 infantry companies. Shortcomings in radio and other communications equipment in those vehicles raise questions about whether they could operate in tandem with U.S. forces, the report continues.

Looking to the future, the picture only gets worse, the report states. Cuts to capital budgets mean many ships, warplanes and other weapons systems will reach the end of their life cycles in five to 15 years with no replacements in sight.

Anticipating the criticism, Mr. Eggleton said the nature of security threats has changed radically since the Cold War, when countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization needed tanks and large brigades to deter a Soviet attack in Central Europe.

Maybe more emphasis will have to be put on military intelligence and small, highly mobile special forces that can operate covertly to attack terrorist hideouts, Mr. Eggleton said.

He said the United States has not yet asked Canada or any of its other NATO allies for any specific form of military assistance.


----------



## enfield (27 Sep 2001)

I looked up NATO defence funding levels on the NATO homepage... interesting.
Canada‘s budget is 1.2% of it‘s GDP. The NATO average is 2.6%, and the highest our budget has EVER been since WW2 is 2.1% (during the late 80‘s), and even than it was significantly lower than the rets of NATO.
So, to meet the standard we should be getting more than $22 billion....

This post edited to correct the numbers. Factsheet is:
www.nato.int/docu/pr/1999/table3.pdf


----------



## herbie (27 Sep 2001)

It‘s not just money that‘s needed.  It‘s support from the top down.  So many of our soldiers have been "ROE ‘ d to death " that they believe that if they use force, even in war, that their higher will hang them out to dry.  Our soldiers need the kit ( money) but more important they need the war training and esprit that comes from knowing you are on the right side and are doing the right thing with full support of the nation.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Sep 2001)

Beauty....could you imagine what this army could do with 22 billion dollars and a little common sense....


----------



## Yard Ape (28 Sep 2001)

that 22 billion would be split three ways with the navy and airforce aswell . . .  but could you imagine if the CF had been getting that money all along?

  Yard Ape


----------



## Recce41 (28 Sep 2001)

Well
  Here we go again, Will we get old new equipment ,or new new. its just like the Leo C2 a quick fix. We always try to fix our junk. Our Forces could have their own Junkyard Wars. With the money will we pay for over priced junk or buy good useable kit. We in the Army need new Tanks, a real Recce veh, more LavIIIs, a new type of MLVW, and Iltis replacement, some new m-548s, etc,etc.
  What can 1 bil. buy not much if split 3 ways. We require like most of you said atleast 20 bils. Are we going to stand up a fourth or fifth BGE. Maybe in Gagetown and in Shilo. 
   Wait no we‘ll buy a commition to say what we can buy, that should take 1 quarter of it, and a test to see what equipment would be good another quater. And a few trips to see other countrys, hey we get lil now. Now we could buy a new some new tyres, a bolt or two. These is what has happened in the pasted will we get equipment time will tell.
   A saying for a movie most like. This is the Canadian Army, one of the least equipped Armys in Nato, Able to do more with less. Well Soldier do you feel new equipment. Well do you Soldier.


----------



## Soldier of Fortune (28 Sep 2001)

If they had been giving the CF 22 bil. then they probably saving a couple of billion right now instead of having to update everything at once.


----------



## King (29 Sep 2001)

I‘ve basically resigned myself to the fact that the Cf will never be properly equiped to defend Canada. 

The Liberals will never do it. Even the Alliance, which people generally think would put the most back into the CF wouldn‘t put enough in. $20 billion? Never. There‘s too many other groups that need cash, all of them more important to the Canadian people. 

At least we can take comfort in knowing the NDP has as much chance of getting elected as the Alliance. God help the Forces if that ever happens.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Sep 2001)

> $20 billion? Never. There‘s too many other groups that need cash, all of them more important to the Canadian people.


What is more important to the people than their lives, security, and rights and freedoms.  Does this all come free, secured by a piece of paper and a bunch of politicians in Ottawa.  Chesty was right, one day a stronger race is going to come, wipe us out, and take our women.


----------



## brad_dennis (29 Sep 2001)

This may be information you already know, but it doesn‘t hurt to post it again.

If you are concerned with the lack of spending, send an email message to the PMO‘s office (pm@pm.gc.ca), Art Eggleton‘s office (eggleton.a@parl.gc.ca) and CC your MP‘s office. Tell them. It takes 2 minutes to send a quick email. In the wake of the WTC I know that they are hearing alot about security concerns. It‘s all about issue visability, hot issues get dealt with as the gov‘t wants to be seen to be responding to the people‘s concerns. In 6 months or a year this may not be a hot issue or one that is deemed "vote-worthy"

It can‘t hurt and it‘s your right to be heard.

B.


----------



## the patriot (29 Sep 2001)

Okay, that‘s it.  Let‘s look at the last 25 years in defence expenditures and see what‘s going on.  The Grizzlies, CF-18‘s, and Leopard Tanks were procured by the Liberals in the late 70‘s and early 80‘s.  The Conservatives then kill 2 military colleges, gut a few bases and tender out a contract for 12 navy frigates that are now not being used.  After the Liberals came back in power, the Griffon helicopter replaced the aging Kiowas and Hueys.  Eureka!!!  The Liberals are now replacing the Grizzly with the Coyote and LAV III.  Partisan politics aside, I think the Liberals like to spend money.  I‘m sure that with some hard nudging, they could spend more on defence.  And by the way, here‘s a direct link to the Conference of Defence Associations website.

Conference of Defence Associations

-the patriot-


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Sep 2001)

This site tells you what our government has been spending, partisan politics aside, of course.
www.nato.int/docu/pr/1999/table3.pdf


----------



## King (29 Sep 2001)

Infanteer,

I don‘t disagree with you. Security should be any nations primary concern. He in Canada it‘s not and that‘s not entirely the governments fault. Most Canadians would like to see more cash to the CF, but when it comes down to it, they vote for other issues. We take for granted that America will always be there to protect us. Most of Europe works the same way. 

patriot,

The Conservative‘s planned on buying new tanks and getting some nuclear subs for the Navy (& of course the EH-101‘s). In short they wanted to expand the CF in almost every aspect, including putting a full division in Europe. It was the huge debt that forced them to stop. The Liberals sucked tonnes of cash from the CF to help balance the budget, it‘s just now that they are putting some back. Chretien is a student of Trudeau, and like Trudeau think it doesn‘t matter what Canada does militarily since it dwarfs in comparison to the U.S. I believe Trudeau would gotten rid of the military entirely if not for the Cold War. Jean isn‘t as bad though, he at least sees value in peacekeeping and patrolling our shores. That‘s all the major defence spending in the last few years has been. Frigates and subs and Coyotes and Comorants. It also seems something is in the works to replace the Sea Kings. Don‘t expect anything like tanks or artillery or attack helicopters to come along anytime soon. They don‘t want to waste money on things that can only be used for war. Even after all that‘s happened, you‘ll only see a token increase in defence spending.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Sep 2001)

Cretian is a student of Trudeau, and Trudeau was a disaster for this country, both internationally and militarily.  I for one, did not morn the loss of him last year.  His policy reforms were reckless (and not to mentioned abandoned) and succeeded only in further depleting the power of our military.  A loose cannon, Trudeau attempted to pull the Canadians completly out of Europe.  When threatened by our allies, he obliged but cut our forces overseas down to a measly brigade stuck in the rear area.  Like Enfield stated, is this where a member of the G-7 (8?) belongs?


----------



## enfield (30 Sep 2001)

I find that many believe the CF is small because "Canada isn‘t that big of a country" - not like the US, UK, Russia, etc. But, we AREN‘T a small nations - we‘re in the Developed World, we are a member of the G8, and we have a relatively large economy, natural resources, international trade, a decent sized population, one of the largest coastlines in the world, and we have a policy of military intervention- South Africa, WW1, Russia, WW2, Korea, UN+NATO. We are neither neutral nor pacifist. If we were in Asia or South America, we‘d be a major power - only our proximity to the US makes us look small. 

We always say that our foreign policy is seperate from the US and UK - but in real terms, foreign policy in many ways boils down to pure economic and ability to project military power, and in the latter we‘re tied to the US. We can‘t do a Non-combatant Evacuation, and we can protect neither our interests nor our citizens against any serious foreign aggression. Instead, in lieu of a defence budget we have a policy of avoiding all and any conflict and generally being really non-offensive - which is a good thing, but but it can only carry us so far. We can be either neutral, or an active member of the world community - and since we‘ve chosen the last one, we should be able to back it up. Without the ability to take an active part in Coalition actions, protect our citizens and interest overseas, we‘re little more than the kid who follows around the big kids.

I venture that the CF doesn‘t, and never had, the ability or the need to protect Canada. There is no plausible enemy - even in the Cold War, the idea of Russian invading Canada was not a serious threat. We have a military so that if we feel like doing something overseas, we can. Nobody can cross the oceans (or arctic) let alone beat the US. Now terrorism has thrown a little wrench into that plan... think the Air Force will still cut the CF18 fleet in half? 

Ok, sorry this is so long. One last thing - does any other military put pictures of it‘s soldiers shovelling snow (or other domestic disaster ops) in it‘s recruiting material?


----------



## Infanteer (1 Oct 2001)

Enfield,

We were talking about this in a Canadian Foreign Policy class.  The exact same issues were brought up.  There is no excuse for us to be in the position we are on the world stage; it all boils down to being stuck in a psychological rut which places us as a "Middle Power" (can you think of any other Middle Powers in the world???) that espouses doctrines such as "soft power" (Yeah, whatever Mr. Axworthy...), multilateralism, and peacekeeping.
If you ask me, we are just a Lazy Power, to close and cozy to the U.S. to take on the roles and responsabilities fitting of our country.


----------



## Yard Ape (1 Oct 2001)

> Originally posted by Infanteer:
> [QB]
> If you ask me, we are just a Lazy Power, to close and cozy to the U.S. to take on the roles and responsabilities fitting of our country.QB]



Well said.


   Yard Ape


----------



## King (1 Oct 2001)

We really like to rape America. 87% of our exports go there because no other country wants to trade with us. We have everything from shared defense resources to special monetary agreements (one made by that great anti-American Pierre Trudeau). Academics sit here and bitch about why we can‘t give up our water, which equals about 25% of the worlds supply of fresh water. It‘s like saying we have 25% of the worlds food and we‘re going to keep it for ourselves. It‘s not just us (although we are the worst). The EU which has a philosophy about America akin to some Liberals or the NDP still needs American logistical and intelligence support to conduct any sort of continential security operation. In Kosovo half of the combat troops are British (which says something about the EU‘s dependence on the most anti-EU nation in Europe) and the rest are European or from countries like Canada, but the support remains American (this would be another interesting topic, why so many western countires cannot support their combat arms). Yet when it comes to supporting America elsewhere, even if it‘s token support, Europe backs off, the Brits are the only ones left with planes in Iraq.

At any rate, I agree that Canada could never truely defend herself. We should however be able to meet our committments to NATO and NORAD and be able to at least detect what‘s comming at our borders and send a first strike response. We should also be able to conduct things like non-combatant evacuations. I think that the idea that we‘re an active member of the international community is a sham. We aren‘t, at least not when it counts. We‘re not the humanitarian nation we claim to be. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Belgium, Switzerland, even ****ing Luxembourg gives more international aid as a proportion of GDP then Canada. In real dollar figures places like Denmark and the Netherlands give more then us. And we‘re certainly not the leader in peacekeeping anymore. We haven‘t had a policy of military intervention since Korea.

The Canadian Governments contribution to the international world is token soldiers and gifts. It‘s contribution at home is to tell Canadains that only the diversity of our tolerence or the tolerence of our diversity will help us beat terrorism. That as long as we keep fetishizing multiculturalism we can be safe. 

I‘d also like to know from all the other students out there how their student federations and goverment responded to the WTC attack. Over here it was a lame anti-racism campaign. A weak response. Oh well, you stick with what you know.


----------



## enfield (1 Oct 2001)

Wow, there‘s lots of agreement on this. 
Ok, the poll on CBC.ca says that 58% of Canandian ar in favour of increasing the DND budget, (35% say 1.2-3 bill, 45% 3-12 bill, 16% more than 12 bill)

I think King brought up a good point - not only is Canada impotent in this situation, so is a good chunk of Western Europe. But I think the EU realizes their embarassing reliance on American support and is working to fix this. 

Eggleton says we are more combat effcetive than we were in 1990 - does that mean we send TWO field hospitals? wait.. we have no doctors. Maybe more frigates? nope, no crews. Maybe our new LAV3‘s and Coyotes? Well, hopefully the Americans feel like carrying them over for us or we can find a Rusian contractor. But I‘m sure they‘ll be of lots of use next time we shovel snow or fill sandbags in Manitoba. 

Anyways, the fact is: Due to public ignorance of defense and security issues, which have been staring us in the face for decades, we are left with a depleted military capacity. Ok, so 58% of the public now wants more money in defense - where are they when I‘m out recruiting? 

I invite anyone to to do a quick poll of your friends/colleagues - name a Canadian regiment, (or maybe even battle honour). I think this question (and the lack of ability of almost any Canadian to answer it) would underline the ignorance of military matters that the general public has. This needs to be rectified - and Sept 11 was a good slap in the face. Hopefully the coming conflict will further show our situation.


----------



## Disturbance (1 Oct 2001)

my closest friends I have ever had still have trouble dealing with the fact that I am in the army. A friend said to me that his grandma said NEVER EVER join the military and I try and bring up something like what if Hitler made it to Canada and the StormTroopers start rolling into the cove and kill your parents and your brothers -youre telling me your still gonna give in with out a fight. He f,ucking told me that the life he would have to live would still be better than dieing. This is from my best f,ucking friend. They think I am crazy cause I like the s,hit I learn. And even when I bring up more intangeable things which they MIGHT even relate to like ...patriotism, duty, honor, pride, respect it just goes right through them.....one of them even wants to be a cop even get into the ERT and he cant even understand why I would want to go on the CRIC and help make a difference (no matter how small). I wouldnt normally care but these are my closest friends and if I am to put my life on the line for my country I would at LEAST hope they could understand why. Any of this make sense? I apologize for any venting which may occured.


----------



## King (1 Oct 2001)

Good point Enfield. I‘d like someone to ask Eggleton to justify why he keeps saying the CF is more combat efficient today then it was 10 years ago.

As far as friends go, they don‘t mind. Although my friends are a collection of some strange characters and some of them are from my days in cadets. I did have a conversation with my roommate (who‘s dad is actually an air force LCol.)
where he asked me, since he knew I was joining the militia, if the situation with terrorism blew into WWIII would I drop everything and go. I think I gave a simple yes and then he preceded to explain to me why he couldn‘t ever go because he has responsabilities to get an education first.


----------



## brad_dennis (2 Oct 2001)

Disturbance;

I have had friends with that same disposition. 

Lets say your friend‘s neighbor suddenly decided that he liked your friend‘s house and wanted it for his own. So he came over put a gun to your friends head and said, "Ok, this is now my house. Every thing that you ever owned and worked for, you will now have to give to me. You will move only the possessions that you can carry in one trip, into the garage where you will now live, for which you will pay me rent. You will not be allowed out, only to work and your paycheque will come to me, for which I will use to provide you with food and water. Oh and by the way, your sister will now be my girlfriend."

Hypothetically we have to assume two things 1) There is no police 2) You have a gun. 

Tell your friend he has two choices, he can either continue to live in the garage, or he can ask for help from you. If he replies in the latter, then he has just answered the question as to why Canada and other democratic nations need a military and why one would want to go into the military. 

Explain to your friend that good or bad, all you can do is to want to do the best job possible and be proud that you are. It‘s a job like anything else. The only real difference between the military and most other jobs is the fact that you could be called upon and put in a situation that you have to take another person‘s life with whom you have no personal grudge against. (except for the fact that he is shooting at you). Some people can‘t be soldiers, it‘s not in their nature, but they should understand that, since the dawn of time, there has always been and always will continue to be a need for peacemakers.

B.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Oct 2001)

*King said:*


> At any rate, I agree that Canada could never truely defend herself


By the end of World War II Canada, a Nation of 13 million people, had an Army of over 500,000 soldiers.  The RCN and the RCAF, boasting strengths of over 100,000, were among the strongest in the world.  Prior to American entry into the War in late 1941, Canada was considered the "Arsenal of Democracy."
We could easily put forth the resources to adequetly defend this country if we (that is John Q. Public) decided it was important (!!!).  However, see my post on the psychological rut and the Lazy Power concept.


----------



## Yard Ape (2 Oct 2001)

*Eggleton produces open letter defending government & military, hitting critics*
JOHN WARD
Canadian Press
October 1, 2001

OTTAWA (CP) - Defence Minister Art Eggleton has traded the sword for the pen, producing an open letter defending government policy on the military and accusing critics of living in the past. The federal government has been sharply criticized in recent days for leaving the cash-strapped Canadian Forces unprepared to tackle a global war on terrorism.

"The low level of collective training, the unsatisfactory state of some weapons and equipment and the lack of logistics support would make engagement in combat operations problematic without resolving those shortfalls." the report said.

"I just want to deal with the issues that came out of the CDA report," the minister said Monday. "I think we have to understand it in context."

In the opinion piece, Eggleton said: "I have been somewhat troubled by what I have read and heard. A good portion of the discourse in Canada appears to be rooted in ‘old-think‘. And history has shown repeatedly that one of the most serious errors a military can make is to prepare for the last war."

If it does involve military action, he said, Canada can help.

"While the Canadian Forces‘ combat capabilities have been much criticized in recent days, this criticism has lacked balance."

He said the government has a national counter-terrorism plan and the Forces have a highly trained counter-terrorism unit called JTF2.

"We also have effective intelligence capabilities," Eggleton said.

The government has put $3 billion into defence in recent years, he said, but more money may be hard to find.

He added, though, that the government is prepared to fight terrorism:

Leon Benoit, the Canadian Alliance defence critic, wasn‘t impressed by Eggleton‘s pledge to defend Canadians.


----------



## King (2 Oct 2001)

Infanteer,

Canada has the resources to defend herself, so yeah we COULD do it. TO be able to physically defend our huge nation we would need something quite massive compared to what we have now and it would cost a lot of money (and we‘d have to find the people). Considering the nature of politics (especially in this country) and the threats we actually face, it‘ll never happen. Not unless a dramatic change occurs (not the kind of change that‘s happened recently).

Anyway, I came across a good article in today‘s Toronto Star about the militia and I‘ve never seen anything like this about the reserves in a major daily before...

 http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1001935649388&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/N  ews


----------



## Yard Ape (5 Oct 2001)

*Military well-equipped, Eggleton insists*
By JEFF GRAY
Globe and Mail Update
Thursday, October 04

Defence Minister Art Eggleton said accusations from a Canadian Alliance MP that Canada‘s military was "totally unprepared" to defend the country or help in the U.S.-led campaign against terrorism were "a bundle of distortions and exaggerations."

Appearing before the Commons defence committee, Mr. Eggleton faced intense questioning from opposition MPs about Canada‘s military readiness, beginning with Canadian Alliance MP Leon Benoit.

Mr. Benoit charged that Canada‘s military are "totally unprepared" for the challenges they face in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and that he was alarmed that the minister continued to use "spin" to say the Forces were battle ready.

The Alberta MP said a long list of experts — including former generals, historians, and a defence lobby group, the Auditor-General — have raised "serious questions" about military readiness.

"So my question is Mr. Minister, given the war we now face, isn‘t time you told your spin people to get away from this. . . . Isn‘t it time you start listening to these experts who really care about our military and understand the seriousness of the situation and work with them to help rebuild our Forces?" Mr. Benoit asked.

Mr. Eggleton responded forcefully.

"Well, Mr. Chairman, I don‘t know how the member can sit there with a straight face and say that. It‘s a bundle of distortions and exaggerations," Mr. Eggleton said.

The minister allowed that "not everything is what we would like it to be in the Canadian Forces," but said Mr. Benoit‘s criticism was "absolute nonsense" and "disgusting." He accused the Alliance MP of being "irresponsible" and wanting only to "play politics."

Other MPs on the committee echoed Mr. Benoit‘s concerns, but insisted they did not want to play politics with the military. Many critics have said recently that Canada‘s military capability had whithered after years of budget cuts.

The Conference of Defence Associations, a defence lobby group, said last week that the Forces‘ were unable to meet their basic commitments, and needed at least another $1-billion a year.

But Mr. Eggleton and his officials have maintained that the Forces are able to contribute in a meaningful way to the worldwide anti-terrorism campaign, as well as live up Canada‘s basic commitments.

In his opening remarks Thursday, Mr. Eggleton said the Canadian Forces were preparing for the threats of the future, such as biological, chemical or cyberterrorist attacks. And he emphasized that the Forces‘ future lay in "niche capabilities," being able to respond to threats in various places around the world, co-operating a sharing intelligence with allies.

He said the government had reinvested $3-billion over the past three years in the military, and that equipment was being upgraded.

And Mr. Eggleton told the committee that Canada‘s military acted quickly on Sept. 11, he said, going onto high alert. Extra CF-18s were put into the North American air defence system, and three ships were put on standby to deliver any humanitarian aid that was required.

The military also helped care for the thousands of stranded airline passengers who ended up in Canada when flight to the United States were diverted here. And Canadian emergency officials acted quickly to communicate with their U.S. counterparts, he added.

"These examples demonstrate the excellent work of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces and it shows that when asked, they were ready," Mr. Eggleton said.


----------



## the patriot (8 Oct 2001)

How hard would  it be to put the Reserves on operational standby?!  Our forces are depleted yadda, yadda...... Suck it up, be a man and spill some blood!!!!   Reserve soldiers are already on deployment in Europe.  Close to 20% of our forces in Europe are Canadian Armed Forces Reservists.
Just go down the Order of Battle and activate some  Reserve regiments to the Regular Force Order of Battle or do a Reg Force call-out to the Reserves.

-the patriot-


----------



## Disturbance (8 Oct 2001)

I would be down for that.


----------



## RCA (8 Oct 2001)

Yes, let’s just push a few buttons ( or actual sign an order) and put a few reserve units on operational stand-by. What does that mean? Like Op Abacus- you only get paid if you’re called. Or does that mean you terms of service become unlimited liability whereby you are called up and all your civvy obligations are put by the wayside? Does that mean upon standdown (whenever that might be), the gov‘t and DND will sort out job protection and compensation at that time or as usual let the reservist sort it out himself.

And to what purpose to call out the reserves, to take over peacekeeping in Bosnia, or as augmentation to the Reg F, or to have sit around just in case. And who you going to call out-those in the east, west or central. Or those areas with highest unemployment because they can afford to have people pulled from their area. And if we are going to call out units, which ones. The infantry or engineers, the comms guys or the medics. And which units. Those with the greatest strength (probably mostly QL3s) or those with the greater number of QL4s. Who gets to decide.

And be careful on your call for this country to spill the blood of its soldiers to show it has balls. I am one of those you are potentially speaking about, and when I put my nuts on the line I want it to be the right reasons, not because some civvies think it is the macho thing to do.

At a time like this, I prefer those for clear rational thinking to be in charge, and no matter what people say, that seems to be what the gov’t is doing. Admittedly they could probably do more, but I know before they commit us, they would have considered every angle. That is the most I could ask from them. I am taking about the here and now, not the past.


----------



## Yard Ape (11 Oct 2001)

With talk of sending troops to replace US units deployed to Bosnia, the minister should reconsider his critisism of supporters of conventional forces.  Conventional forces are the one that do the peacekeeping and enforcing.  If the Army‘s contribution to current and future conflicts is to be replacing US troops peacekeeping roles then we need to increase our conventional forces.  "Force rationalization" is just another term for making conventional forces smaller.  We should be looking to increase our capabilities within the current size of the army . . . not looking at how much we can reduce our Army and still maintain the capabilities required in the past.  

Don‘t get me wrong, I also support increased SF capabilities.  But I disagree with the hacking away at the conventional force.  

   Yard Ape


----------

