# How can we be part of NATO yet NOT spend the 2%??



## Biggoals2bdone (21 Nov 2010)

I'm just wondering since usually things are pretty black and white when it comes to military, you know yes sir, no sir and what not.

Since we only spend a dismal 1-1.1% of our GDP, how can we still be part of NATO?
it is one of the requirements.

i'm also wondering how people can say cut military spending but send us in Africa...kinda seems azz-backwards...sure rob us of troops (cutting on recruitment) rob us of equipment (cutting back on spending) but saddle us with the same workload.  I honestly don't get this view that i've seen in a lot of the newspapers and what not, like how they love being Canadian but we should just disband the Canadian Forces and let the US do all out work for us...BUT they don't want to do what the US tells them.

Given our military's accomplishments and the overall quality of soldiers we put out, and all the work we try to do with the size we are, wouldn't the logic be to have MORE so we could accomplish more work, or BETTER.  I'm not saying conscription or anything silly like that, but just to have spending where it should be, and for the people as well as the gov to think LONG TERM in terms of equipment/platform/ship/etc acquirement and recruiting and retention, as opposed to the yo-yo action they've been giving us.

end rant.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Nov 2010)

Biggoals2bdone said:
			
		

> rob us of troops (cutting on recruitment)



We are not being robed of troops. The CF are currently over its authorized strength. Recruitment is being cut for that reason.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (21 Nov 2010)

Biggoals2bdone said:
			
		

> Since we only spend a dismal 1-1.1% of our GDP, how can we still be part of NATO?
> it is one of the requirements.



Maybe because we are one of the founding members of NATO.....



> About member countries and their accession
> The founding members
> On 4 April 1949, the foreign ministers from 12 countries signed the North Atlantic Treaty at the Departmental Auditorium in Washington D.C.: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States.
> 
> REF: NATO WEBSITE


----------



## Biggoals2bdone (21 Nov 2010)

Aviator: that's just it, they are cutting recruitment, because they are also cutting budget...if they spent as much as they should be, we wouldn't be needing to cut recruitment.

I think its safe to say we all agree for the population as well as general economy of our country, our military should be bigger.

Sapper:  Even though we are one of the founding members, it doesn't mean we shouldn't still be upholding our end of the bargain, and abiding by the stipulations.


----------



## yoman (21 Nov 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> We are not being robed of troops. The CF are currently over its authorized strength. Recruitment is being cut for that reason.



Isn't the authorized strength supposed to be 70 000 as stipulated by the Government's Defense Strategy? Last CANFORGEN I read on the matter stated we were at 69 000 and reducing to 68 000.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Nov 2010)

Let's stay on track. We're talking about our membership in NATO.

 > HERE COMES THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE (with not personal opinion, but food for thought) >

Better question than 'How can we be part of NATO yet NOT spend the 2%??' is 'Why Should WE  Even Be A Part of NATO'?

What benefit do we really derive from our membership? 
Are we assured of full NATO participation if Canada is attacked? 
Do we need NATO participation? Or will US involvement suffice? (They would act in their own interest no matter NATO thoughts)
Is there a real threat we will be attacked from someone outside NATO? 

We have no real stake in Europe anymore, other than some monetary trade effects. 
Could we survive on the same economic plain if someone else over there was running the show?

Would we run to protect a NATO member simply because our grandparents were born there?

Let's get real, it's all give and no take. We spend and support. The fact is, the chances of us getting attacked and requireing our NATO allies to pony up are zero.

Why do we continue to support others that give us nothing in return?


----------



## aesop081 (21 Nov 2010)

yoman said:
			
		

> Isn't the authorized strength supposed to be 70 000 as stipulated by the Government's Defense Strategy?



The Government's strategy says alot of things.............



> Last CANFORGEN I read on the matter stated we were at 69 000 and reducing to 68 000.



I stand corrected, the CANFORGEN said :



> EARLY RECRUITING SUCCESS AND AN UNFORECAST DROP IN ATTRITION HAVE
> RESULTED IN A REGULAR FORCE STRENGTH OF 69,000. THIS MESSAGE RECAPS
> MEASURES BEING IMPLEMENTED TO BRING REGULAR FORCE STRENGTH CLOSER TO
> VCDS TARGET OF 68,000



So either way, we are above targeted strenght.

It also said this :



> COMPONENT
> TRANSFERS AND RE-ENROLMENTS OF SKILLED PERSONNEL WILL CONTINUE TO BE
> PROCESSED FOR DISTRESSED OCCUPATIONS



So we are still taking soldiers where required......

Then it said this :



> AS A FURTHER MEASURE TO REDUCE REGULAR FORCE STRENGTH, RELEASE
> PROCEDURES FOR PERSONNEL ON BTL AWAITING DISPOSITION ARE BEING
> STREAMLINED TO ENSURE THAT MEMBERS SEEKING OR BEING RELEASED FROM
> THE CF ARE PROCESSED WITHOUT DELAY



So what we are losing are soldiers we would be losing anyways.....just losing them faster. So the CF targeted strenght is 68000 and we are losing people exactly where we should be losing them from. What soldiers are we being robed of again ?



			
				Biggoals2bdone said:
			
		

> Aviator: that's just it, they are cutting recruitment, because they are also cutting budget...if they spent as much as they should be, we wouldn't be needing to cut recruitment.



More money doesn't equate more soldiers. More C-17s would surely be useful to move the ones we have now. How about a few more C-130J.......how about FWSAR that has been delayed for how many years ? How about money to replace my 31 year-old CP-140 ? I'm sure there are many other systems that could finaly be brought into the modern world with more money.



> I think its safe to say we all agree for the population as well as general economy of our country, our military should be bigger.



Why is population size and economy a measure of how large the forces should be ? Silly me, i always thought that things like threat and missions to accomplish were the important things that determined size and force structure.......


----------



## Biggoals2bdone (21 Nov 2010)

Clearly economy and population matter in the size of military, considering our population we won't have a military the size of china unless we have mandatory military service, likewise if our economy sucked and we barely had 2 nickels to rub together we wouldn't be able to field much of a force.

obviously though threat/missions matter as well, but consider that we do maintain a peacetime military...so threat/mission is not the most important factor, otherwise we would disband.

Going back to threat/mission, I think its also safe to say, if we could have put more boots on the ground, say 2-5 times more then we did, that we could have accomplished more then we did, but we were incapable of sending 10 000 - 20 000 troops, so who's to say what numbers are appropriate for X threat.

I totally agree that troops/military size, is but ONE thing the military could change if we spent more, clearly there are a few things that would also need to be adressed:
- long term ship building/fleet replenishment.
- procurement of wheel and track vehicles/replenishment of said vehicles during and after conflicts.
- updating military housing.
- procurement of new aircraft (jets, transport, helos, etc) as well as maintenance and future upgrades.
- Procurement of new small equipment (load bearing vests, weapons, boots, etc)
- upgrading/repairing the many broken/outdated fitness facilities
- more live fire training
and a host of other things, i'm positive I didn't mention.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Nov 2010)

Biggoals2bdone said:
			
		

> obviously though threat/missions matter as well, but consider that we do maintain a peacetime military...so threat/mission is not the most important factor, otherwise we would disband.



You have that backwards. We maintain a military force because there is a threat and there are missions that the GoC need handled. If there was nothing for us to do, there would be no military, no matter the size of the population nor the size of the economy.


----------



## captloadie (22 Nov 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Let's stay on track. We're talking about our membership in NATO.
> 
> > HERE COMES THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE (with not personal opinion, but food for thought) >
> 
> ...



But are we really getting nothing in return? Belonging to NATO gives us _access_ to many things that the majority don't think of. It would be more difficult to access certain equipment and software if we weren't members of NATO, not impossible, but more difficult. Even simple things like working as an outsider on NATO missions becomes a hassle when you look at security access, access to LOCs, etc. 

It is not really about just protecting us from Big Red coming over the top anymore.


----------



## jollyjacktar (22 Nov 2010)

To expand on recceguy's DA.  Why not ask the rhetorical questions.  Is NATO even relevant in today's world as many member states seem to only look to their own national agenda and not the collective good of NATO?  Could Canada, should Canada look to another form of alliance?


----------



## George Wallace (22 Nov 2010)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> To expand on recceguy's DA.  Why not ask the rhetorical questions.  Is NATO even relevant in today's world as many member states seem to only look to their own national agenda and not the collective good of NATO?  Could Canada, should Canada look to another form of alliance?



NATO is more than a military alliance.  People tend to overlook that fact.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Nov 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> NATO is more than a military alliance.  People tend to overlook that fact.



You can't just leave it there. If people overlook it, it's likely because they don't know it. If you're going to make the statement, you have to explain it.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Nov 2010)

What?  People forget that it was a political/economic/military alliance to defend the West from the Soviet Bloc/Warsaw Pact.  It wasn't the military of the West that brought down the Wall, but the economic powerhouse and political alliances of the West.  Capitalism and Trade amongst the NATO members, which stimulated growth in non-member states as well, created a state where the Soviet Bloc's form of Communism could not compete.  

From NATO, and the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, we see the European members of NATO becoming more Euro centric and creating an offshoot of NATO to include former Warsaw Pact nations in Europe in a European Union.  Coincidentally many of these new members of the EU are also applying for membership in NATO.  The lines between the two alliances are fading.  If the North Americans pull out of NATO, then we will be left with only the EU, and NATO will have evolved into a new form with a new name, all European.  This is a road towards Isolationism.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Nov 2010)

NATO was an essential _handmaid_ of the Marshall Plan.

The economics of the Marshall Plan needed a 'security blanket,' some way of allowing Europe to focus on reconstruction without the pressing (and expensive) need to rearm to protect themselves from the ambitious, aggressive USSR and *each other*.

It was Lord Ismay, a former NATO Secretary General, who said something like _“The purpose of NATO is to keep the Russians out, the Yanks in, the French up and the Germans down."_ It may not have been a politically correct thing to say, but it was accurate. The American 'security blanket' obviated the requirement for Europe to rearm, at great cost, to face down the Russians; Europe, instead, was allowed to rebuild in peace and for civilian consumption – Volkswagen cars, Grundig stereos and Miele appliances rather than panzers and dive bombers.

There never was a minimum spending or force structure requirement to join NATO. Iceland, for example, is a charter member – its armed forces strength? Zero. (But, in fairness it does have an armed Coast Guard and some para-military “crisis response” units.) Some countries spend 5% of GDP on defence, others spend 1%, no matter how you count 'shares' the US share is disproportionately high.

Why NATO? See: here and here for some thoughts on the subject.


----------



## Pusser (22 Nov 2010)

It's also worth noting that when all aspects are considered, Canada is still considered a net contributor  to NATO.  This means that notwithstanding our military contribution, out total contribution (i.e. total economic activity, remembering that NATO is not strictily a military alliance) is greater than what we receive in return.  At least it was the last time I checked.


----------



## GAP (22 Nov 2010)

So...........Europe is still sucking NA dry, after all these years.............


----------



## Remius (22 Nov 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You have that backwards. We maintain a military force because there is a threat and there are missions that the GoC need handled. If there was nothing for us to do, there would be no military, no matter the size of the population nor the size of the economy.



I`m pretty sure we have a military to maintain sovereignty first and foremost regardless of threat, perceived or otherwise.  A military is essential to that.  It is essential to exist or else someone else will do it.  If we didn't have a functional airforce you can bet someone else would be asserting their presence in our airspace.  Same with our waters.

I agree with that population size and money should not be the factor.  Our needs is what is most important.  What do we need to maintain proper sovereignty in the air, land and sea?  This has to do with geography.  We have the longest coastline in the world but very few ships to patrol it.  People are up in arms about F-35s but they don`t realise that helicopters can`t cover our airspace etc etc.  If we want to continue with missions in failed states then you need an adequate ground force to do it. 

Personally I would move away from NATO.  Solidify alliances with more traditional allies.  The arctic is going to be one of those hotspots withing the next 20 years and I doubt our NATO "friends" are going to care unless they have a stake in it.  Also, an asian pacific alliance makes more sense given the power shift.  

Afghanistan showed us what are NATO allies are really like.  Only a few have truly commited.  Out of how many countries? 16 or 17.   NATO is the US with a few reliable partners and a bunch of loudmouths.


----------



## aesop081 (22 Nov 2010)

Crantor said:
			
		

> If we didn't have a functional airforce you can bet someone else would be asserting their presence in our airspace.  Same with our waters.



So we are right back to threat and having a military to meet it. Take a look at Iceland. It does not have armed forces of its own.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Nov 2010)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Personally I would move away from NATO.  Solidify alliances with more traditional allies.  The arctic is going to be one of those hotspots withing the next 20 years and I doubt our NATO "friends" are going to care unless they have a stake in it.  Also, an asian pacific alliance makes more sense given the power shift.



So you want to move away from NATO and focus on an Pacific alliance.  In retrospect, we did have a Pacific alliance, SEATO, that people with similar thoughts as yours ref NATO, dissolved.  No you suggest we reinvent the wheel.  What if in twenty years we see a major threat develop in the North Atlantic?  Do you want to have to recreate NATO to address it as well?  So far we have seen no one, even Nostradamus, who was able to accurately predict the future.  Would you advocate that the town you live in sell off the Firetruck, because there have been no fires in town for several years, or would you keep it on the odd chance that there may be a fire?


----------



## Remius (22 Nov 2010)

GW:
I never said dissolve NATO.  

Using your fire truck analogy I would certainly stop lending my truck to the next town over if they weren`t paying their share of the gas and pay required while they have two nice shiny ones sitting there doing nothing for fear of scratching the paint and would use my truck somewhere where it would be better used, like the new suburbs that have popped up in my own town.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (22 Nov 2010)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Personally I would move away from NATO.  Solidify alliances with more traditional allies.



Who are these traditional allies with whom we should solidify our alliances that are not part of NATO?


----------



## brihard (22 Nov 2010)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Who are these traditional allies with whom we should solidify our alliances that are not part of NATO?



Australia and New Zealand come to mind.

I suspect, though, that he was speaking more of our alliances with Britain and America not necessarily being contingent on a NATO context to be meaningful.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (22 Nov 2010)

We have our ABCA relationship that promotes interoperability with the ANZAC folks. In terms of "traditional" allies, though, that is mostly the US and across the Atlantic.


----------

